Skip to main content

Full text of "Moslem schisms and sects (Al-Fark Bain al-Firak) ..."

See other formats

Ml II I 



Divisiofi P \q 





30-32 East 2oth Street 


Amen Corner, E.C. 


30 North Szechuen Road 




(Al-Fark Bain al-Firak) 




abu-Mansur 'abd-al-Kahir ibn-Tahir 
ai-Baghdadi (d. 1037) 





N*ro fork 


All rights reserved 

Copyright, 1920 
By Columbia University Press 

Printed from type, January, 1920 


The translation of a work from one language into an- 
other is always a job more or less thankless. It is difficult 
to satisfy the masters at each end of the line. This is the 
case particularly when the languages are as distant philo- 
logically one from the other as is English and Arabic. The 
translator desires to reach lucidity of statement; at the 
same time he wishes to reproduce his author's words with 
as felicitous precision as is possible. Between these two 
ideals he may fail to adjust himself with that nicety that 
reveals the master hand. 

It is not for me to judge in how far Mrs. Seelye has 
steered clear of the rocks in her path ; yet I venture to say 
that her translation gives a very fair picture of the original. 
The subject which was the theme of al-Baghdadi — the Con- 
formity or the non-Conformity of Mohammedan religious 
and philosophic sectaries — is an abstruse one at best. But 
it has its especial interest. The history of Mohammedan 
thought, as the theories of the Greek metaphysicians are 
embroidered on to the dogmas of Islam — is of sufficient in- 
terest to the general student of the world's intellectual effort 
to warrant the attempt to do for al-Baghdadi what has 
already been done for the two other scholars of his age, 
Ibn Hazm and al-Sharastani and to render his work acces- 
sible to the student who cannot read him in his Arabic 

In putting out this first part of al-Baghdadi's Compen- 
dium, it ought to be remembered that the text as published 
in 1 910 by Muhammad Badr is not in prime condition. It 


is based upon one single manuscript; and, even with the 
corrections suggested by the master-hand of Ignaz Gold- 
ziher, it does not always inspire in the reader a robust con- 

In her Introduction, Mrs. Seelye has endeavored to point 
out the difference in the form of presentation that distin- 
guishes al-Baghdadi from Ibn Hazm and al-Sharastani. We 
may not care to believe that our author has achieved a won- 
derful performance; but he has, at least, given us some in- 
teresting material. He was learned and a much-read man ; 
and though his point of view is strictly conservative, it is 
one that has to be taken into account, if we wish to under- 
stand the various influences that have moulded the great 
Mohammedan world. I wish to join Mrs. Seelye in ac- 
knowledging the assistance she has received from both Dr. 
Philip Hitti and Professor Talcott Williams in helping her 
over many a difficult problem. 

Richard Gottheil. 

Columbia University, May 31, 1919. 



Note v 

Introduction i 

Translation 19 

Part I 21 

Chapter I. The Divisions of the Moslem Community 21 

Part II 25 

Chapter I. Explanation of the Idea 27 

Chapter II. The Division into Sects 31 

Part III 41 

Chapter I. The Sects of the Rawafid 43 

Chapter II. The Sects of the Kharijlyah 74 

Chapter III. The Doctrines of the Erring Sects among the 

Mu'tazilite Kadarlyah 116 

Bibliography 211 

Index 215 



Of Islamic Sects in General 

To the student who first looks into the tenets of the 
.Moslem religion, the simplicity of the creed accepted by all 
who profess Islam, would imply a remarkable unity in this 
religion. He might at first be tempted to compare it, with 
favorable results for Islam, to Christianity with its many 
sects and denominations. Even, when, after a little fur- 
ther study, he found that there was one great schism in 
Islam, the one which divides the Shiites and the Sunnites, 
he could still marvel at a religion of but two sects. But 
once face to face with the tradition, ' k The Jews are divided 
into 71 sects, and the Christians are divided into 72 sects, 
and my people will be divided into 73 sects," his marveling 
would cease, and his first impulse would naturally be to 
condemn a religion which justified its schisms by a tradi- 
tion said to come down from the prophets. The fact of the 
matter is, that instead of the tradition being invented to 
justify the sect, the sects have been invented to justify the 
tradition. In other words, claiming that Mohammed had 
said that Islam would be divided into 73 sects, many of the 
theologians of Islam felt it incumbent upon them to bring 
about the fulfilment of this prophecy, and therefore set to 
work to make a more or less arbitrary division of the re- 
ligious system. We must not, however, conclude from this 
that all but the two sects, the Shiites and the Sunnites, owe 
their origins to the imaginings of the theologians. Many 
sects exist which represent important philosophical schools 


and widely differing trends of thought. It is when these 
are subdivided, to bring up their number to 73, that the 
arbitrariness appears, 

In his article entitled Le denombrement des sectes Ma- 
hometanes, which appeared in the Revue de VHistoire de la 
Religion, vol. 26, Goldziher offers an explanation for the 
origin of this rather extraordinary saying attributed to 
Mohammed. He tells how allusions to this division by 
European authors are to be found as early as the sixteenth 
century. Martinus Crucius in his Turco-Graeciae libri octo, 
Bale, 1587, p. 66, says: " Superstitio Mohametana est in 
LXXII principales sectas divisa, quarum una sola in Para- 
disum dux est, reliquae vero in inferos." Some traditions 
give the number as 72 instead of 73. Ibn Maja (d. 283) 
gives 1 three versions of this saying of the prophet : In one 
it is only the Jews who, with their 71 sects, are opposed to 
the future division of Islam into 72 sects, the Christians not 
even being mentioned; in another, in opposition to the 73 
sects of Islam, the Jews are mentioned with 71, and the 
Christians with 72 sects, of which one shall go to heaven, 
while the rest are condemned to hell; in the third version, 
the 71 Jewish sects alone are opposed to Islam. Palgrave 
suggested that the idea of the 72 sects came from the New 
Testament account of Our Lord's 72 disciples. Goldziher's 
suggestion is that this tradition is an erroneous interpreta- 
tion of a word which originally meant something quite dif- 
ferent, this wrong interpretation having changed the primi- 
tive form. In other words, " Shu'ab," branches, a term 
applied very generally to the various ramifications of an 
idea, came to mean " Firkah," division, and thus sect. The 
tradition which has become thus misinterpreted is, accord- 

1 Abu-'Abdallah Muhammad ibn-Yazld ibn-Maja al-Kazwini. Cf. 
Brockelmann, Arabische Litteratur, vol. i, p. 163. De Slane, ibn-Khalli- 
kan, Biographical Dictionary, vol. ii, p. 680. 



ing to Goldziher, the one quoted by the great traditionalist 
Bukhari 1 (194-256/810-870), " Faith has 60 and some 
branches, and modesty is one branch of faith " (Le rec. des 
trad. Mah., ed. Lud. Krehl, vol. i, p. 2). This same tradi- 
tion appears a little later, as follows : " Faith has 70 and 
more branches, of which the highest is the belief that there 
is no God but Allah, and of which the lowest is the taking- 
out of the oath what is to be rejected; and modesty is a 
branch of faith" (Muslim, Sahih, ed. Cairo 1288 A. H., vol. 
i, p. 126) . 2 This use of the word branch gradually came to 
have the meaning of branching off, dividing; and finally 
firkah having been substituted for " Shu'ab," we have the 
tradition of the y2 or 73 sects. 

Other rather interesting explanations of this arbitrary 
division are to be found in Steinschneider's article in Z. D. 
M. G., vol. iv, p. 147. Here the suggestion is made that it 
can be traced back to the Jewish tradition about Moses and 
the 70 elders ; that Moses chose six elders from each tribe, 
except Levi, which being a model tribe would not take 
offense if slighted, and was therefore asked for only four 
representatives, Moses himself constituting the seventy-first 
elder. This number the Mohammedans must increase ; and 
they therefore claim 73 sects. Another view is that the 
origin is astronomical, while a third derives it from the 70 
languages of the Tower of Babel; and a fourth from the 
J2 letters in Allah's name, a tradition drawn from the Jew- 
ish legend of the y2 letters with which Yahweh will free 
the children of Israel. 

Disagreements over this hadlth have not, however, been 
limited to the question of the number. One of the greatest 
points of difference was the question of how many of these 

1 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 594. 

2 One of three great traditionalists of the ninth century. Cf. ibid., 
vol. iv, p. 391. 


sects would be saved. Some held (among them our author, 
Baghdad!) that all would be damned except one, the ortho- 
dox Sunnite sect ; others held that all would be saved except 
one ; while still others, and among them leading men, denied 
the tradition altogether. Of this group, one of the greatest 
was Fakhr al-DIn al-Razi the great preacher 1 (d. 1209) . In 
his commentary on the Koran (Surah 21, v. 93) he says: 
" The authenticity of this tradition has been attacked, and it 
has been observed that if by the 72 sects are meant as many 
divergencies of the fundamental dogmas of religion, there 
are not as many existing; but if, on the contrary, it is a 
question of secondary teachings (derived from these fun- 
damental doctrines), there are more than twice as many. 
Besides, some are to be found giving quite the opposite of 
the text which is generally admitted : that all the sects will 
go to paradise, one only to hell." Maf&tlh al-ghaib [Keys 
of the mysterious world], vol. vi, p. 193. Some others 
who disregard the tradition go to the other extreme. Mak- 
rizi, 2 for instance, claims that the Rafidfyah are divided 
into 300 sects. Ibn-Hazm holds that many of these sects 
arose as followers of false prophets, clever politicians and 
mystics. As an example of the cleverness of some of the 
leaders, he mentions abu-Mughith al-Husain al-Hallaj, 8 
who appeared to his companions as God, to the princes as a 
Shiite, and to the people as a pious Sufi. In this connection 
it is interesting to note how often the leader of a new sect 
is a mania or freed slave., Baghdad!, and ibn-Tahir, as orthodox Sun- 
nites cling to the hadith, and strive to whip the various sects 
into line, cutting, inserting, and combining, till they reach 

1 Clement Huart, Littcrature Arabe, p. 317. 
3 Ibid., p. 355. 

3 Mystic who was executed in 921 (ibid., p. 269). 



the number of 73. Ibn-Hazm, on the other hand, disre- 
gards the hadtth altogether. 

The various Aral) writers who take up the matter of the 
sects within the " Ummat al-Islam" (the community of 
Islam) naturally differ in their manner of grouping the 
sects. Of these writers, the three whom we are going to 
consider, Baghdad!, Shahrastani and ibn-Hazm, although 
differing in details, agree more or less in the main divisions. 
Being orthodox Sunnites themselves, they cannot disagree 
about that sect. The unorthodox they divide as follows: 
Shahrastani groups them under the four main headings: 
Kadariyah, Sifatiyah, Khawarij, and Shiite. Ibn-Hazm: 
Mu'tazilah (much the same as the Kadariyah), Murji'ah, 
Kharijiyah and Shiite. Baghdad! : Kadariyah, Kharijryah, 
Murji'ah, Shiite. In the subdivision of the Shiites, which is 
the next most important sect to the Sunnites. Shahrastani 
gives the following divisions: Kaisanlyah, (4), Zaidlyah 
(3), Imamlyah (1), Ghulat (10), Isma'iliyah (1); total 
19. Ibn-Hazm gives only two subdivisions, the Zaidiyah 
and the Imamlyah (or Rafidiyah). Baghdad!: Zaid!yah ? «' < 
(|), Kaisanlyah (?), Imamlyah (15) ; total 20. The Ghu- 
lat he excludes entirely from the Ummat al-Islam. 

This gives a little idea of the differences abounding over 
this subject, and the more or less arbitrary character of the 
whole proceeding. A carefully tabulated list of Baghdadi's 
divisions will be found at the end of this introduction. 

As we have already noted, the reasons given for the 
branching off of the numerous sects vary greatly. Some of 
the sects are of political origin, others have really to do 
with some of the fundamental beliefs of Islam, while still 
others are based merely on quibbling. An example of the 
greatest political division is to be found in the separation 
of the Shiites, which was due to the disagreement over 'AH. 
The Shiites claim that 'All was martyred by Mu'awiyah and 



that his descendants alone are to be regarded as legitimate 
Imams. By some 'All was even regarded as divine. We 
read of one sect whose leader having addressed 'AH as a 
God, was put to death by the latter and his following perse- 
cuted. Till lately the opinion has been held that the attitude 
taken by the Shiites with regard to 'AH was greatly influ- 
enced by Persian mysticism, and the Persian conception of 
a ruler as more or less divine. This opinion has, however, 
been questioned by Goldziher. The tendency to regard 
'AH as a God naturally increased after his death. To the 
orthodox Sunnite, clinging to the creed., " There is no God 
but Allah, and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah," such a 
view is little short of blasphemy. Once divided on this 
point, these two, the Sunnite and the Shiite, developed 
apart from each other, and include in the ramifications of 
their numerous sects almost every conceivable view. The 
main divisions of the Shiites have already been given ; the 
Sunnites recognize no sects within the orthodox fold, but 
are divided into the four great schools, each of which recog- 
nizes the other. These are the Hanifite, the Malikite, the 
Shafiite, and the Hanbalite. 

With such an array of sects as the above statements in- 
dicate, we are led to wonder what were some of the causes 
for disagreement. The average student of Islam is likely 
to imagine that every Moslem must accept the Koran as 
infallible. After a glance at some of the Islamic works on 
sects, however, it is apparent that the only thing upon which 
all Moslems agree is the creed : " There is no God but 
Allah, and Mohammed is the prophet of Allah." Every- 
thing aside from this has, at some time or other, been 
attacked by some scholar or leader. If these men limited 
themselves to attacking or arguing over questions really 
vital to Islam, such as the necessity for daily prayers, the 
pilgrimage, the giving of alms, etc., a Mohammedan work 



on sects might prove most interesting reading. As a mat- 
ter of fact, these subjects seem to occupy them far less 
than their hair-splitting quibbles over the question of 
whether Allah touches his throne or not, whether a man is 
a believer, an unbeliever or a heretic, whether an interrupted 
prayer is acceptable, etc. These discussions strongly re- 
semble in pettiness the scholastic debates of the mediaeval 
Christian Church, regarding the number of angels able to 
stand on a pin-point at one time, or the consequences at- 
tending a mouse's eating the consecrated host. The result 
is rather dull reading, and at times appears not only dull 
but exceedingly childish. 


Accounts of Baghdadi's life are to be found in the fol- 
lowing works : 

De Slane, Ibn-Khallik&n, vol. ii, p. 149. 
Subki,Tabakat al-Shafi'lyah, vol. iii, p. 238. 
Wiistenfeld, Die Shafiiten, no. 345 ; Abhandlung. der 

Ges. der Wiss. Gottingen, vol. 37, p. 345. 
Brockelmann, Geschichte der Arab. Lit., vol. i, p. 385. 
Friedlander, /. A. O. S., vol. 28, p. 26. 
Goldziher, Vorlesimgen iiber den Islam, p. 160; Z. 

D. M. G., vol. 65, p. 349. 
Encyclopedia of Islam, under Baghdad!. 

Abu Mansur 'Abd al-Kahir ibn-Tahir ibn-Muhammad 
al-Baghdadl (d. ^29/1037), was, according to ibn-al-Salah, 
the son of Tahir ibn-Muhammad al-Baghdadl (d. 283). 
Subki, who quotes ibn-al-Salah, however, is not sure of this 
statement, he merely gives it for what it is worth (Subki, 
Tabakat al-Shafi'lyah, vol. ii, p. 228). 

'Abd al-Kahir was a native of Baghdad, but while still 
young went with his father to Nisapur where he studied 



numerous sciences. Subki, in his long account of him 
{Tabakat al-Shafi'lyah, vol. iii, p. 238), says he was versed 
in 17 sciences. He became especially famous for his skill 
in arithmetic, although theology attracted him most. He 
was a pupil of abu-Ishak al-Isfara'ini, whom he succeeded 
after the latter's death in 418 (1027) as teacher and leader. 
The revolt of the Turkomans, however, forced him to leave 
the town in 429 (1037) and take refuge in Isfarain. But 
the joy of the natives of this town at having such an emi- 
nent scholar in their midst was short-lived, for he died 
there that same year and was buried by the grave of his 
former teacher abu-Ishak. 

Ibn-Khallikan tells us that the haHz, k Abd-al-Ghaffar al- 
Faris, mentions him in the Siyak, or continuation of the 
History of Nisapur, and says : " He came to Nisapur with 
his father, and possessed great riches, which he spent on 
the learned (in the law) and on the Traditionalists. He 
never made his information a source of profit. He com- 
posed treatises on different sciences and surpassed his con- 
temporaries in every branch of learning, seventeen of which 
he taught publicly." The longest account of him is to be 
found in Subki's Tabakat, where almost a page is devoted 
to a list of his many virtues and accomplishments. His 
generosity is especially noted; and a rather amusing poem 
of his, on his poverty-stricken condition due to this gener- 
osity is quoted. Subki divided the followers of the great 
leader al-Ash'ari (vol. ii, p. 25) into seven ranks, placing 
Baghdad! in the third rank. Fakhr al-Din al-RazT 1 also 
mentions him in his "Al-Rvyad al-Mii c allakah" {Hanging 
Gardens) . 

According to Subki's account he was a voluminous writer. 
In fact, he devotes an entire half-page to a list of his writ- 

1 Ibn-Khallikan, ibid., vol. ii, p. 652. 


ings, which number nineteen. And even in as long a list 
as this he omits some which Baghdad! himself mentions in 
his Fark. The following are the most important : 

Al-Fark bain al-Firak (the work under considera- 

Kitab al-Milal wafl-Nihal (book on religions and re- 
ligious sects). 

Kitab Imad H MawaYith al-Ibad (the laws regard- 
ing inheritance of the worshippers). 

al-Takmilah ft I hisab (on mathematics). 

To these may be added : 

Kitab al harb 'ala ibn-Harb (against the Mu'tazilite 

Ja'far ibn-Harb). 
The Ruyat Allah, a dogmatic argument over Surah 

75, v. 23. 

In his work entitled Milal wafl-Nihal, now in the Con- 
stantinople library, 'Asir EfYendi no. 555, he treats in much 
more detail of some of the sects on which he therefore 
merely touches in his Fark. 

The manuscript of this work, number 2800 of the Berlin 
library, is described in Ahlwardt's Verzeichniss der ara- 
bischen Handschriften, vol. ii, p. 681. He reports the 
manuscript as untidy, with loose quires and leaves, and a 
little worm-eaten. Some of the pages in the main part of 
the book are missing, as well as the end of the fifth chapter 
of the fifth part. 

'Abd al-Kahir al-Baghdadfs work, Al-Fark bain al-Firak, 
is based on the tradition we have already mentioned: 
" There shall be 73 sects in Islam, of which one only shall 
be saved." Being thoroughly orthodox, he begins by stress- 
ing this last point, that one sect alone shall be saved. This 
sect, the orthodox Sunnites, he treats at the very end of 
his book. 


He divides his work into five parts : 

Part one deals with the tradition already mentioned. 

Part two, in two chapters, gives a brief treatment of the 
manner in which the community came to be divided into 
72 sects, and a very brief statement of the views of the most 
important sects. 

Part three takes up in eight chapters the opinions of the 
unorthodox sects, and gives an explanation of the heresy 
of each. 

Part four deals in seventeen short chapters with the sects 
originating in Islam, but not now found in it. 

Part five takes up in five chapters the one orthodox sect. 

The beginning of his book, which gives a clear summary 
of the various sects, short historical sketches, and a certain 
amount of traditional instances, is quite acceptable reading. 
When, however, he comes to treat of the philosophical quib- 
blings of many of the sects, he becomes rather hopelessly 
involved. We cannot, however, give Baghdad! all the 
blame, for doubtless the apparent senselessness of these 
quibblings arose with the men whose views he is vainly 
trying to give us. Whatever the cause, there are undoubt- 
edly times when we are tempted to quote the Arab poet, 
who, when asked to explain the meaning of some of his 
poetry, answered : " When those verses were written, two 
persons understood them, Allah and I; now only one per- 
son understands them, Allah." 

In conclusion, it may be rather interesting to compare 
the different attitudes and methods of the three men who 
have given us the fullest accounts of the 73 Mohammedan 
sects. We do not include Shuhfur ibn-Tahir, because his 
work so closely resembles that of Baghdad! that it is thought 
by some to be a resume of the latter's. 



'All ibn-Ahmad ibn-Sa'id ibn-Hazm ibn-Ghalib ibn-Salih 
Abu-Muhhammad was born in Cordova in 384/994. Hav- 
ing been forced out of political life by a change in govern- 
ment, he was compelled to turn from political matters to 
scholarly ones. And as one of the results we have his great 
work, Kitab al-Milal wa'l-Nihal, a part of which Fried- 
lander has translated in his article in the Journal of the 
American Oriental Society, vols. 28, 29. Although an 
orthodox Moslem himself, he was exceedingly fair and 
started out by stating that he would never charge an oppo- 
nent with heresy unless he could justify his charge by a 
verbal quotation from the opponent's own writing, "be he 
an unbeliever, a heretic, or a mere sinner, since lying is not 
permissible against any." Unfettered by the tradition of 
the 73 sects, he is able to make logical division of the sects. 
Friedlander says : " We may safely assume that each name 
recorded in the Milal wal-Nihal represents an historical 
fact, and not as in the case of all other writers, a mere 
product of the imagination." What this author is especially 
remarkable for is his " breadth of outlook, power of ob- 
servation, and fairness of judgment." 

Shahrastani was born in 467 or 479, and died in 548/ 
1 153. His work entitled Kitab al-Milal wa'l-Nihal " has 
systematic roundness and scientific classification," but, al- 
though he attempts to be fair, and succeeds far better than 
Baghdad!, there are times when the views of the heretics 
are too much for even him, and he is forced to give vent to 
his feelings. 

We thus have the three points of view : our author Bagh- 
dad!, who starts out by saying that all but the one sect, the 
orthodox, are condemned to hell fire, and goes on to enu- 
merate all those condemned sects, discussing and opposing 
their views, and periodically breaking forth in an excla- 
mation of gratitude that " we are not as they " ; Shahras- 



tan!, more scholarly, his work more carefully arranged, 
fairer, trying to he neutral, but at times failing; and Ibn- 
Hazm, absolutely neutral and bound by no hampering tra- 

Since Shahrastam and Baghdad! represent the more sim- 
ilar treatment, let us consider the two* for a moment. The 
first important thing to note is that Shahrastam devotes 
two-thirds of his book to sects outside of Islam. In the 
first volume one part deals with the 73 sects of Islam, and 
the second part with some of the religions outside of Islam. 
The religions treated in the second part are those which 
possess a Book, and those which have something resem- 
bling a revealed book. Under the former he takes up the 
Jews and Christians, and under the latter the Magians and 
the Thanawiyah, those who accept two principles. In the 
second volume he treats of the various philosophies, the 
Greek, the peripatetic, the Hindu. Some space is given 
to Buddhism, and many discussions are recounted between 
Moslem and other teachers and leaders. Baghdad!, on 
the other hand, merely mentions these other religions in 
passing, devoting practically the whole of this work to 
the sects within the Ummat al-Islam. It is likely that he 
treated these other religions in detail in his Milal wa'l- 
Nihal, and naturally avoided repetition here. As we have 
already seen, in the matter of treatment, Shahrastam 
merely gives the account of the various sects, and only once 
in a while expresses his own opinion. Baghdad!, on the 
contrary, cannot refrain from challenging and criticizing 
these heretical views, so that at times his history of the 
sects becomes a polemical discussion. He opens the book 
with a statement of what he considers constitutes an ortho- 
dox Moslem, and although those outside of this pale may 
have some of the privileges of the faithful, such as being 
buried in a Moslem graveyard, praying in the mosque, shar- 



ing in the booties of Jihad ; nevertheless, they may not have 
prayers said over their bodies, animals slaughtered by them 
are unclean, and they may not marry an orthodox Moslem. 
Having thus shown us clearly where he himself stands, he 
does not hesitate to condemn the heretics — some with rather 
amusing humor, some with rather biting sarcasm, and 
others by quick dismissal as not even worth discussing. In 
fact, the note which runs through the whole part dealing 
with the orthodox is: " Thank God we are not as they." 

Unfortunately, Muhammad Badr of Cairo, who edited 
this work, has let pass many errors, many of which Gold- 
ziher has corrected in an article in the Z. D. M. G., 191 1, 
vol. 65. Others we have corrected. Many of the Koran 
references are wrongly numbered, and some of the proper 
names and sects are incorrect. We should, however, be 
grateful to him for making this work available to us, even 
in such an incomplete form. As will be seen, there are 
several places where the editor himself states that the manu- 
script was not clear, and in one or two cases there are whole 
pages missing. A rather amusing error is the one in the 
table of contents on page 21, where it is stated that the 
section will be divided into eight chapters. Six only are 
then enumerated, but in the section eight headings are 
given. Unfortunately, the manuscript being unavailable at 
this moment, we cannot say whether this was a slip of the 
author or of the editor. It is more likely to be the latter. 

As to the poem on page 40, it is a long, uninteresting 
one which has nothing to do with the subject in hand ex- 
cept at the beginning and the end ; in the translation, there- 
fore, we have given only the first and last verses. 



Table of Sects 

I. Rafidiyah (20) 

A. Zaidiyah (3) 

1. Jarudiyah 

2. Sulaimamyah or Jarlriyah 

3. Butriyah 

B. Kaisanlyah (2) 

1. Followers of ibn-al-Hanafiyah 

2. Muhammadlyah 

C. Imamiyah (15) 

1. Kamiliyah 

2. Bakiriyah 

3. The Ghulat 

4. Mubarrakiyah 

5. Kat'iyah or Twelvers 

6. Hishamiyah 

7. Zarariyah 

8. Yunusiyah 

9. Shaitaniyah 

10. Muhammadlyah * 

1 1 . Nawawiyah * 

12. Shumaitiyah * 

13. Mu'ammariyah * 

14. Isma/iliyah 

15. Musawiyah 

Starred sects are mentioned in the list by BaghdadT but 
apparently not considered important enough to treat. 

II. Al-Khawarij (20) 

1. The first Muhakkamah 

2. Azarikah 

3. Najadah 

4. Sifnyah 



5. 'Ajaridah * (mentions ten in heading, 
treats eight) 

a. Khazimiyah 


b. Shu'aibiyah 

c. The People of Obedience 

d. Saltiyah 

e. Akhnasiyah 

f. Shaibaniyah 

g. Ma'badiyah 

6. Rashidiyah 

7. Mukarramiyah 

a. Hamziyah * 

b. Shamrakiyah * 

c. Ibrahimlyah * 

d. Wakifiyah* 

e. Ibacliyah 


Khalaf lyah and Tha'allbah are not given in the list but 
are treated in the chapter. 

The starred sects are not treated in the chapter. 

III. Mn'tazilites or Kadariyah (20) 

1. Wasiliyah 

2. 'Amriyah 

3. Hudhailiyah 

4. Nazzamlyah 

5. Aswariyah 

6. Mu'ammariyah 

7. Iskafiyah 

8. Ja'fariyah 

9. Bishriyah 














1 6. 



Followers of Salih Kubbah * 


Musaislyah * 









Starred sects not treated in chapter, although mentioned 
in list. 14 and 15, although in list, are treated under the 
Ghulat, that is, those sects which started in Islam but are 
too heretical to be included in the 73. 

IV. Murji'ah (5) 

1. Yunusiyah 

2. Ghassaniyah 

3. Thaubaniyah 

4. Tumanlyah 

5. Marisiyah 
V. Najjariyah (2) 

1. Barghuthiyah 

2. Za'faraniyah 

VI. Jahmiyah 
VII. Karramiyah (3) 

1. Hakakiyah 

2. Tara'ikiyah 



3. Ishakiyah 
Total seventy-three. 














Ashab al-Ibahah 

xAshab al-Tanasukh 

Hayitiyah (of the Kadariyah) 


Yazidiyah (of the Khawarij) 



(of the Rafidiyah) 

Kate Chambers Seelye. 



In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful! 
Praise be to Allah, the maker and originator of all Creation, 
the manifestator and sustainer of truth! Ke it is who 
maketh of truth an armor for him who believeth in it, and 
a source of life to him who relieth upon it. He maketh 
wrong a stumbling-block to the one who seeketh after it, 
and a cause of humiliation to him who pursueth it. Prayer 
and Praise be to the Purest of the Pure, and the Model 
Guide, Muhammad, as well as to his kin, the choicest among 
mortals, the lighthouse of guidance. 

You have asked me for an explanation of the well-known 
tradition attributed to the Prophet with regard to the divi- 
sion of the Moslim Community into seventy-three sects, of 
which one has saving grace and is destined for Paradise on 
High, whilst the rest are in the wrong, leading to the Deep 
Pit and the Ever-flaming fire. You requested me to draw 
the distinction between the sect that saves, the step of which 
does not stumble and from which grace does not depart, 
and the misguided sects which regard the darkness of idol- 
atry as light and the belief in truth as leading to perdition — 
which sects are condemned to everlasting fire and shall find 
no aid in Allah. 

Therefore, I feel it incumbent upon me to help you along 
the line of your request with regard to the orthodox faith 
and the path that is straight — how to distinguish it from the 
perverted heresies and the distorted views, so that he who 
does perish shall know that he is perishing and he that is 
saved that he is so saved through clear evidence. 



The answer to your request I have included in this book, 
the contents of which I have divided into five parts, to wit : 

A chapter in explanation of the tradition transmitted to 
us concerning the division of the Moslem community into 
73 sects. 

A chapter dealing with the shame that attaches to each 
one of the sects belonging to the erring heresies. 

A chapter on the sects that are akin to Islam, but do not 
belong to it. 

A chapter on the saving sect, the confirmation of its 
sacredness and a statement concerning the beauty of its 

These are the chapters of the book; in each one of which 
we shall mention the conclusions that are necessary. So 
may it please Allah. 


An Explanation of the Well-Known Traditions 

in Regard to the Divisions of the (Moslem) 


The tradition has come down to us through the follow- 
ing chain of authorities : abu-Sahl Bishr ibn- Ahmad ibn- 
Bashshar al-Isfara'mi, 'Abdallah ibn-Najiyah, Wahb ibn- 
Bakiyyah, Khalid ibn-'Abdallah, Muhammad ibn-'Amr, abu- 
Salmah, abii-Hurairah that the last said, the prophet of 
Allah — peace be unto him 1 — said : " The Jews are divided 
into 71 sects, and the Christians are divided into 72 sects, 
and my people will be divided into 73 sects.'' And 
we are told by abu-Muhammad 'Abdallah ibn-' AH ibn- 
Ziyad al-Sumaidhi, who is considered of interest and 
authoritative, that he heard through the following chain of 
authorities : Ahmad ibn-al-Hasan ibn-'Abd al-Jabbar, al- 
Haitham ibn-Kharijah, Isma'Il ibn-' Abbas, 'Abd-al-Rahman 
ibn-Ziyad ibn-An'am, 'Abdallah ibn-Yazid, 'Abdallah ibn- 
4 Amr, that the prophet of Allah said : " Verily there will 
happen to my people what happened to the Banu Isra'il. 
The Banu Isra'il are divided into 72 religious bodies, and 
my people will be divided into 73 religious bodies, exceed- 
ing them by one. All of them are destined to hell fire ex- 
cept one." They said : " O, prophet of Allah, which is the 
one religious body that will escape the fire?" He said: 

1 The expression of blessing and peace always follows the name of 
the Prophet, as well as that of the leading- Companions and sheikhs, 
and the words ' mighty and powerful ' the name of Allah. After the 
first time we will not repeat these devout expressions. 



" That to which I belong, and my companions." The Kadi 
abu-Muhammad 'Abdallah ibn-'Umar, the Malikite, says: 
" We have it from my father, who had it from his father, 
that Walid ibn-Maslamah said that al-Auza'i said that we 
are told by Katadah, who had it from Anas, who had it 
from the Prophet : ' Lo, the Banii Isra'il are divided into 
71 sects, and lo my people will be divided into 72. sects, all 
of them destined to hell fire except one, and these are the 
true believers/ " 'Abd al-Kahir says that there are many 
Isnads (chains of traditions) for the tradition dealing with 
the division of the community. A number of the following 
Companions have handed it down as coming from the 
Prophet: Anas ibn-Malik, abu-Hurairah, abu-1-Darda, 
Jabir, abu-Sa'id al-Khidri, Ubai ibn-Ka'b, 'Abdallah ibn- 
( Amr ibn-al-'As, abu-Imamah, Wathilah ibn-al-Aska' and 
others. It is also handed down that the pious caliphs men- 
tioned that the community would be divided after them, that 
one sect only would save itself, and that the rest of them 
would be given to error in this world, and to destruction in 
the next. Moreover, it is reported of the Prophet that he 
condemned the Kadarites, calling them the Magians of this 
people. It is also reported that he condemned the Murjiites 
together with the Kadarites. To this is added the report 
that he condemned the heretics, i. e. the Kharijites. While 
it is handed down from the leading Companions that he 
condemned the Kadarites and the Murjiites and the heret- 
ical Kharijites. 'All, Allah have mercy on him, mentions 
these sects in his Khutbah (sermon) which is known as the 
Zahra' ; in it he declared himself not responsible for the 
people of Adimawat. 1 Every man of intelligence among 
the authors of the treatises ascribed to . . . (text not clear) 
has known that the Prophet in speaking of the divisions that 

1 We have been unable to find any explanation for this word. 



were to be condemned and the members of which were des- 
tined for hell-fire, did not mean the various legal schools, 
who, though they disagreed as to the derivative Institutes 
of law, agreed concerning the fundamentals of religion. 
Now the Mohammedans held two opinions as regards the 
deductions drawn from the fundamental principles of right 
and wrong. The first looks with approval upon all those 
who promoted the Science of derivative Institutes, For it, 
all the legal schools are right. The second approves, in con- 
nection with each derivative Institute, one of the parties 
contending about it and disapproves all the others — with- 
out, however, attributing error to the one who goes astray 
in the matter. And verily the Prophet, in mentioning the 
sects condemned, had in mind only those holders of erring 
opinions who differ from the one sect which will be saved, 
in such matters as ethics and the unity (of God), promises 
and threats (regarding future life), predestination and free- 
will, the determination of good and evil, right guidance and 
error, the will and wish of God, prophetic vision and 
understanding, the attributes of Allah, his names and 
qualities, any question concerning what is ordered and 
what is permitted, [signs for] prophecy and its condi- 
tions, and similar questions in which the Sunnites and the 
(Moslem) community from among the followers of ana- 
logical deduction and tradition agree upon the fundamen- 
tals, and in which they are opposed by the holders of erring 
opinions, namely the Kadariyah, the Khawarij, the Rawafid, 
the Najjariyah, the Jahmiyah, the Mujassimah, the Mus- 
habbihah, and those who follow them * among the erring 
sects. And, verily, those who differ in regard to ethics and 
the unity (of God), the worship of graves and of ancestors, 
are agreed in regard to such matters as celestial vision, 

1 Not clear in the original. 



divine attributes, what is ordained and what is permitted. 
But in regard to the conditions of true prophecy and the 
Imamship, some of them accuse each other of unbelief. So 
that the tradition handed down in regard to the breaking-up 
of the community into 73 sects must be understood to refer 
to differences such as these — not to those on which the lead- 
ing jurists differed in the matter of Institutes drawn from 
the fundamental principles of right and wrong. Is it not 
that in those things in which they differ as regards Insti- 
tutes, it is not at all a question of unbelief or of error? I 
shall mention in the following chapter the various sects to 
which the tradition refers concerning the subdividing of the 
Islamic world, so it please Allah. 



This part treats of the manner in which this community 
has been divided into 73. It also contains an explanation 
of the sects which are collected under the general name of 
the Millat al-Islam. There are two chapters in this part : 
one deals with the explanation of the idea underlying the 
different sects included under the general name of Millat 
al-Islam; the second concerns the explanation of how the 
community has become divided, and the enumeration of its 
73 sects. I shall mention in each one of these chapters what 
is necessary, so it please Allah. 


Explanation of the Idea 

This chapter explains the idea underlying the expression 
Millat al-Islam as a general designation of the various sects. 
Before going into details it is necessary to say that those 
who belong to Islam are divided in opinion in regard to 
those to whom the general name of Millat al-Islam is given. 
Abu-1-Kasim al-Ka'bi 1 claims in his treatises, " When one 
uses the expression Ummat al-Islam, it refers to everyone 
who affirms the prophetic character of Muhammad, and the 
truth of all that he preached, no matter what he asserted 
after this declaration." Others claim that Ummat al-Islam 
comprises all who acknowledge the necessity of turning in 
the direction of the Ka'bah in prayer. The Karramiyah, 
the Mujassimah (corporealists) of Khurasan, say that the 
expression Ummat al-Islam comprises all those who enun- 
ciate the two parts of the creed. They say everyone who 
says, " There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the 
prophet of Allah," is verily a true believer, and belongs to 
the Millat al-Islam, no matter whether he is sincere or in- 
sincere, hiding unbelief and heresy under this assertion. 
Thus they claimed that those who were insincere in the time 
of the prophet Allah were really believers, and that their 
faith was like the faith of Gabriel and Michael and the 
prophets and the angels, in spite of their joining treachery 
to their profession of the two parts of the creed. This 

1 Haarbrucker's Translation of ShahrastanI, vol. ii, p. 400. 

2 Surah 49, v. 14. Cf. Haarbriicker, ShahrastanI, vol. i, pp. 37-38. 



opinion, together with the opinion of al-Ka'bi in his expla- 
nations of the name of Islam, is refuted by the saying of 
the 'Isawiah among the Jews of Ispahan. For verily they 
accept the prophetic character of our prophet Muhammad, 
and the truth of all his teachings. But they claim that he 
was sent to the Arabs, not to the Banu Israel. They say 
also that Muhammad is the prophet of Allah. Nevertheless, 
they are not numbered among the sects of Islam. And some 
of the Sharikaniyah 2 among the jews relate concerning 
their leader known as Sharikan that he said : " Indeed 
Muhammad was a prophet of Allah to the Arabs, and to 
the rest of mankind, with the exception of the Jews." And 
also that he said : " The Koran is true and the Adhan [the 
announcement of prayer], the Ikamah, the performance of 
io the five prayers, the fast of Ramadan, and the pilgrimage 
of the Ka'bah, all these are truths, but they are prescribed 
for the Moslems, not for the Jews." Often some of the 
Sharikaniyah have kept some of these observances. They 
have professed the two parts of the creed : " There is no 
God but Allah, and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah." 
They have also asserted that his religion is true. Yet, in 
spite of this, they are not of the Ummat al-Islam, because 
of their profession that the law of Islam has no binding 
force upon them. And as regards the saying of one who 
uses the expression Ummat ul-Islam as a term to be applied 
to all who see the necessity of turning in prayer to the 
Ka'bah situated in Mecca, it must be remembered that some 
of the legalists of al-Hijaz have favored this view, but the 
theoretical reasoners (ashab cd-ra'i) rejected it, according 
to what Abu Hanifah reports, to the effect that he who be- 
lieves in turning to the Ka'bah in prayer, even if he is in 
doubt as to its location, is in the right. But the traditional- 

1 Poznanski in Revue des Etudes Juives, LX : 311. 



ists (ashab al-Hadlth) do not hold the belief that he is 
orthodox who doubts the location of the Ka'bah, just as 
they do not accept one who doubts the necessity of turning 
to the Ka'bah in prayer. 

The true view, according to us, is that the Ummat al- 
Islam comprises those who profess the view that the world 
is created, the unity of its maker, his preexistence, his attri- 
butes, his equity, his wisdom, the denial of his anthropo- 
morphic character, the prophetic character of Muhammad, 
and his universal Apostolate, the acknowledgment of the con- 
stant validity of his law, that all that he enjoined was truth, 
that the Koran is the source of all legal regulations, and 
that the Ka'bah is the direction in which all prayers should 
be turned. Everyone who professes all this and does not 
follow a heresy that might lead him to unbelief, he is an 
orthodox Sunnite, believing in the unity of Allah. If, to 
the accepted beliefs which we have mentioned he adds a 
hateful heresy, his case must be considered. And if he in- n 
cline to the heresy of the Batimyah, or the Bayamyah, or the 
Mughirah, or the Khattabiyah. who believe in the divine 
character of all the Imams, or of some of them at least, or 
if he follows the schools which believe in the incarnation of 
God, or one of the schools of the people believing in the 
transmigration of souls, or the school of the Maimuniyah 
of the Khawarij who allow marriage with one's daughter's 
daughter or one's son's daughter, or follow the school of the 
Yazidiyah from among the Ibadiyah with their teaching 
that the law of Islam will be abrogated at the end of time, 
or if he permits as lawful what the text of the Koran for- 
bids, or forbids that which the text of the Koran allows as 
lawful, and which does not admit of differing interpretation, 
such an one does not belong to the Ummat al-Islam, nor 
should he be esteemed. But if his heresy is like the heresy 
of the Mu'tazilites, or the Khawarij, or the Randah of the 



Imamiyah, or the Zaidiyah heresies, or of the heresy of the 
Najjariyah, or the Jahmiyah, or the Darariyah, or the Mu- 
jassimah, then he would be of the Ummat al-Islam in some 
respects, namely : he would be entitled to be buried in the 
graveyard of the Moslems, and to have a share in the tribute 
and booty which is procured by the true believers in war 
with the idolators provided he fights with the true believers. 
Nor should he be prevented from praying in the mosques. 
But he is not of the Ummat in other respects, namely that 
no prayer should be allowed over his dead body, nor behind 
him (to the grave) ; moreover any animal slaughtered by 
him is not lawful food, nor may he marry an orthodox 
Moslem woman. It is also not lawful for an orthodox man 
to marry one of their women if she partake of their belief. 
'AH ibn abi-Talib said to the Khawarij : " There are three 
things binding upon us, that we should not start fighting 
with you, that we should not forbid you the mosques of 
Allah so that you may mention the name of Allah in them, 
and that we should not hinder you from sharing the booty 
as long as your allegiance is with us. Moreover, Allah 

knows best." 


The Division into Sects 


Contains an explanation of the manner in which the 
Ummat differed, together with an enumeration of the num- 
ber of its 73 sects. 

At the death of the prophet, the Moslems followed one 
path in the fundamental principles of religion and its de- 
duced corollaries, except in the case of those who agreed in 
public but in private were hypocrites. The first disagree- 
ment came when the people disagreed over the death of the 
prophet. Some among them asserted that he had not died, 
and that Allah had only wished to raise him to himself as 
he had raised 'Isa ibn-Maryam to himself. This difference 
ceased, and all were agreed upon his death, when abu-Bakr 
al-Siddik brought to them the words of Allah to his 
Prophet : " Verily thou shalt die, and they shall die." He 
said to them : " Whoever worshipped Muhammad, verily 
Muhammad is dead ; whoever worshipped the Lord of Mu- 
hammad, lo verily he is living and dieth not." Then they 
differed over the Prophet's place of burial, the people of 
Mecca wishing the body to be taken to Mecca because that 
was his birthplace, the place of his calling, the place to 
which he turned in prayer, the place of his family, and 
there is the grave of his ancestor Ishmael; while the people 13 
of al-Madmah wished him to be buried in that city because 
that was the home of his flight and the home of his Helpers. 
Others desired the body to be taken to the Holy Land 
and be buried in Jerusalem by the grave of his ancestor, 
Abraham the beloved. This difference, however, ceased 
when abu-Bakr al-Siddik related to them on the authority 



of the Prophet : " Verily the prophets are buried where 
they die." They therefore buried him in his chamber in 
al-Madinah. After this they differed over the Imamate. 
The Helpers (Ansar) agreed to acknowledge Sa'd ibn- 
'Ubadah al-Khazraji. But the Kuraish said : " The Ima- 
mate must not be, save among the Kuraish." Then the 
Ansars agreed with the Kuraish because of the saying of 
the Prophet relating to them : " The Imams are of the 
Kuraish." But this point of difference has lasted till this 
day, for the Darar or the Khawarij held that the Imam 
could come from others than the Kuraish. The next differ- 
ence arose over the affair of Fadak, 1 and over the inheri- 
tance of property left by prophets. The decision of Abu- 
Bakr settled this matter by the tradition coming from the 
prophet, " Verily the prophets do not bequeath anything." 
They then differed over the view as to what cancels the ob- 
ligation of alms. But they finally agreed to the judgment 
of Abu-Bakr concerning the duty of their warfare. After 
this they busied themselves making war upon T ulaihah 2 
when he declared himself a prophet and rebelled, until he 
was driven to Syria. In the days of 'Umar he returned to 
Islam and was present with Sa'd ibn Abi-Wakkas at the 
battle of al-Kadisiyah, and after that at the battle of Naha- 
wand, where he was killed as a martyr. After this they 
made war on Musailamah, the false prophet, until Allah 
14 put an end to his affair and to the affair of Sajah the false 
prophetess, and also to the affair of al-Aswad ibn-Zaid al- 
'Anasi. This over, they turned to the killing of the rest of 
the apostates, until Allah ended that affair. After this they 
made war on the Greeks and Persians. And Allah granted 
them victory. During all this time they were agreed upon 

1 Jewish village conquered by Muhammad. 

- Ibrt-Hajar, Biographical Dictionary of Persons who knew Mohammed, 
vol. ii, p. 596. 



such questions as ethics, the unity of God, promises and 
threats, and other fundamental principles of religion. They 
differed only over the application of the Fikh [religious 
canon], in the cases such as inheritance of the grandfather 
with brothers, and sisters with fathers and mothers or with 
the father alone; over questions concerning justice, consan- 
guinity and partnership returns, and whether sisters can be 
residuary legatees of the father and the mother, or the 
father with his daughter, or the daughter of a son. They 
also differed as to the line of relationship and the question 
of what is forbidden, and such similar questions, differ- 
ences which do not lead to doctrinal error or immoral acts. 
They were in this concord in the days of Abu Bakr and 
'Umar and during six years of the caliphate of 'Uthman. 
After this they differed over 'Uthman for certain things 
which he did, for which some blamed him, this blame cul- 
minating in his punishment by death. And after his murder 
they differed over his assassins and those who abandoned 
him, a divergence of opinion that has lasted until this day. 
Their next point of difference was over the affair of 'All and 
the Followers of the Camel, over the affair of Mu'awiyah 
and the people of Siffin, over the judgment of the two 
judges, abu-Musa al-'Ash'ari, and 'Amr ibn-al-'Asi; these 
differences also have endured down to our time. In the 
time of the later Companions there arose the divergent 
views of the Kadariyah as to predestination and free will, 
from the views of Ma'bad al-Juhani and of Ghailan al- 15 
Dimashki and of Ja'd ibn-Dirham. Among the later Com- 
panions who differed from them was 'Abdallah ibn-'Umar, 
Jabir ibn-'Abdallah and abu-Hurairah, and ibn-' Abbas, and 
Anas ibn-Malik and 'Abdallah ibn-abi-Aufi and 'Ukbah 
ibn-' Amir al-Juhani and their contemporaries. These en- 
joined their successors not to greet the Kadariyah, nor to 
pray over their bodies, and not to visit their sick. After 



this the Khawarij differed over some things among them- 
selves, and they separated into as many as twenty divisions, 
each of them condemning the rest as unbelievers. Then it 
came to pass in the days of al-Hasan al-Basri that Wasil x 
ibn-'Ata al-Ghazzal seceded over the matter of predestina- 
tion, and also in regard to a middle position between two 
extremes, and 'Arnr ibn-'Ubaid ibn-Bab went over to him 
with his heresy. Al-Hasan drove them both from his im- 
mediate community, and they separated from the rest, tak- 
ing their place beyond the columns of the mosque of al- 
Basrah. They and their followers were called Mu'tazilah 
because of their turning from the words of the Ummah in 
their assertions that a transgressor can be of the Ummat al- 
Islam and yet neither a believer nor an unbeliever. 

Now as to the Rawand (or Shia) : The Sabbabiyah 2 
among them started their heresy in the time of 'All. One 
of them said to 'AH, " Thou art a God," and 'AH destroyed 
some of them by fire, and banished ibn-Saba to Sabat al- 
Madain. This sect is not one of the divisions of the Ummat 
al-Islam, because it calls 'All a god. Then the Rawafid, 
after the time of 'AH separated into four classes, the Zaid- 
J 6 lyah, the Imamiyah, the Kaisaniyah and the Ghulat. These 
in turn further subdivided, each sect condemning the rest. 
All of the subdivisions of the Ghulat are outside of the pale 
of Islam. But the subdivisions of the Zaidlyah and of the 
ImamTyah are still considered among the sects of the Um- 
mah. The Najjariyah in the neighborhood of al-Rai sep- 
arated after the time of al-Za'farani into sects which con- 

1 Shahrastani incorrectly has Wafzil. 

2 Saba lyah — became Sabbabiyah (denouncers) because of their attitude 
toward 'All. Ibn-Saba was said to be a Jew, "outwardly confessing 
Islam in order to beguile its adherents." Ibn-I-Iazm, Kitdb al-Milal 
wa'l-Nihal, tr. in part by I. Friedlander, J. A. O. S., vol. xxviii, p. 37- 
Treated more fully by Shahrastani, Haarbriicker, vol. i, p. 200. 



demned each other. The secession of the Bakiriyah was 
due to Bakr, the nephew of 'Abd al- Wahid ibn-Ziyad; the 
secession of the Darariyah to Darar ibn-'Amr; and that of 
the Jahmiyah to Jahm ibn-Safwan. Jahm and Bakr and 
Darar declared their views when Wasil ibn-'Ata brought 
forth his errors, and the propaganda of the Batiniyah ap- 
peared in the days of the (Caliph) al-Ma'mun at the hands 
of Hamdan Karmat and 'Abdallah ibn-Maimun al-Kadah. 
The Batiniyah, however, do not belong to the sects of Islam, 
but rather to the sects of the Magians, as we shall show 
later. They appeared in the days of Muhammad ibn-Tahir 
ibn-'Abdallah ibn-Tahir in Khurasan, in contrast to the 
Karramiyah, the corporealists. 

The Zaidiyah from among the Rawafid were divided into 
three sects, the Jarudiyah and the Sulaimaniyah, and some 
add the Hurairiyah and the Butriyah; these three sects 
being held together by their doctrine of the Imamship of 
Zaid ibn-'AH ibn-al-Husain ibn-'AK ibn-abi-Talib when he 
revolted. This was at the time of Hisham ibn-'Abd al- 
Malik. One part of them, the Kaisamyah, represent nu- 
merous divisions, but they all can be included in two sects, 
one of which claimed that Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyah 
was still alive, that he had not died, that they awaited his 17 
coming, claiming that he was the expected Mahdi. While 
the second of these sects agreed with them as to his Imamate 
while he was alive, and at the time of his death, after his 
death they transferred the Imamate to someone else. After 
this, further, they differed over the one to whom the Imam- 
ate is transferred. 

The Imamiyah who [at first] had separated into the Zaid- 
iyah, the Kaisamyah J and the Ghulat, later formed fifteen 
sects, viz., al-Muhammadiyah, al-Bakinyah, al-Nawisiyah, 

1 Text : " Kisa lyah " ; but see ShahrastanI, p. 165. 



al-Shumaitiyah, al-'Ammariyah, al-Isma/iliyah, al-Mubarak- 
lyah, al-Musawiyah, al-Kita'iyah, the Ithna 'Asahriyah (the 
Twelvers), al-Hishamlyah, the followers of Hisham ibn-al- 
Hakam, or of Hisham ibn-Salim al-Jawaliki, al-Zarariyah, 
followers of Zararah ibn-A'yun, al-Yunusiyah followers of 
Yunus al-Kummi, al-Shaitaniyah followers of Shaitan al- 
Tak, al-Kamiliyah followers of abu-Kamil, who was the 
most severe in condemning 'AH and the rest of the Com- 
panions. These are the twenty sects springing from the 
Rawafid; of these, three are Zaidiyah and two Kaisamyah, 
with fifteen sects of the Imamiyah. 

The Ghulat among them, however, who hold to the divine 
character of the Imams and sanction those things forbidden 
of the Canon law and reject its obligatory character, as for 
example the Bayaniyah, the Mughiriyah, the Janahiyah, the 
Mansuriyah, the Khattabiyah, the Haluliyah, and those who 
hold similar views, are not of the sects of Islam although 
they claim adherence to it. These we shall mention in a 
separate part following this one. 

Now when differences arose among the Khawarij they 
split up into the twenty following sects : The first Muhak- 
18 kimah, the Azarikah, the Najadat, the Sifriyah, the 'Aja- 
ridah, the latter splitting up into numerous sects, namely: 
the Khazimiyah, the Shu'aibiyah, the Ma'lumiyah, the Maj- 
huliyah, the Ma'badlyah, the Rashidiyah, the Mukarram- 
lyah, the Hamziyah, the Ibrahimlyah, the Wakifah, and the 
Abacliyah who in turn split into the Hafsiyah, the Harith- 
lyah, the Yazldiyah, and the Followers of Obedience which 
is not intended for Allah; of these the Yazldiyah are the 
followers of ibn-Yazid ibn-Unais, and are not of the sects 
of Islam because they say that the law of Islam will be- 
come annulled at the end of time by a prophet sent from 
Persia. The same is the case of the 'Ajaridah, of whom 
there is a sect called the Maimuniyah, which was not of the 



sects of Islam because it sanctioned the marriage with 
daughters of daughters and with daughters of sons just as 
the Magians sanction it. We will mention the Yazidiyah 
and the Maimumyah among those who are derived from 
Islam, but are not of it, nor of its sects. 

The Kadariyah, the departers from truth, split up into 
twenty sects, each one condemning the rest. These are 
their names : the Wasiliyah, the 'Amriyah, the Hudhailiyah, 
the Nizamiyah, the Amwariyah, the 'Umariyah, the Thu- 
mamiyah, the Jahiziyah, the Hayitiyah, the Himariyah, the 
Khaiyatiyah, 1 the Sahamiyah, the followers of Salih Kub- 
bah, the Muwaisiyah, the Ka'biyah, the Jubba'ryah, the 
Bahshamiyah, who were founded by abu-Hashim ibn-al- 
Jubba'i. These are the twenty-two sects; two of them do 
not belong to the sects of Islam, i. e. the Hayitiyah and the 
Himariyah. We shall mention them among the sects which 
are derived from Islam but do not belong to it. 

Three classes are to be distinguished among the Mur- 19 
ji'ah : one of these classes believes in disobedience in mat- 
ters of faith and in predestination, according to the belief 
of the Kadariyah. They are therefore counted among the 
Kadariyah and the Mur ji'ah like abu-Shimr al-Murjf, 
Muhammad ibn-Shabib al-Basri and al-Khalidi. The sec- 
ond of these classes believes in disobedience in matters of 
faith, but are inclined toward the view of Jahm as to deeds 
and works. These are all Jahmiyah and Murji'ah. The 
third class accepted the view in regard to disobedience, but 
did not accept the doctrine of predestination. It formed 
five sects : the Yunusiyah, the Ghassaniyah, the Thauban- 
lyah, the Taumamyah, and the Marisiyah. The Najjar- 
lyah comprise to-day in the city of al-Rai more than ten 
sects, although they are originally no more than three sects : 

1 Haarbrucker's Shahrastanl, vol. i, p. 79. 


the Burghunlyah, the Za'faranlyah, and the Mustadrikah. 
The Bakrlyah and the Dirariyah each form one sect; They 
do not have numerous followings. The Jahmiyah also 
form one sect. The Karamiyah in Khurasan form three 
sects, the Hakakiyah, the Taraikiyah, and the Ishakiyah. 
These three sects, however, do not condemn each other. 
We therefore regard them all as a single sect. All these 
that we have mentioned make up the seventy-two sects ; of 
them twenty are Rawafid, twenty Khawarij, twenty Ka- 
dariyah and ten Murji'ah; three of them are Najjariyah, 
including the Bakrlyah and the Dirariyah, the Jahmiyah 
and the Karramiyah; and these are the 72 sects. The 73d 
sect, the orthodox, is composed of the two classes of the 
theorists and the traditionalists, except those who deal 
lightly with tradition. The legalists of these two groups 
and the Koran readers, traditionalists, and the philosophers 
among the followers of tradition, all are united in the one 
opinion as to the unity of the creator and his attributes, his 
justice and his wisdom, his names and his qualities; also in 
regard to prophecy and Imamate, and the doctrines of retri- 
bution, and the rest of the fundamentals of religion. They 
differ only over that which is permitted and that which is 
forbidden in the deductions from the fundamental doctrines. 
In the things in which they differ there is nothing that can 
cause them to err, or lead them astray. They form the 
[great] body of those who will be saved. They are united 
by the firm belief in the unity of the creator and in his 
eternity, the eternity of his unending attributes, the possi- 
bility of having visions of Him, without falling into the 
error of anthropomorphism or atheism, and in acknowledg- 
ing the books of Allah and his prophets, the authority of the 
law of Islam, the permitting of that which the Koran per- 
mits and the forbidding of that which the Koran forbids, 
as well as the holding of those traditions of the prophets of 



Allah which are trustworthy, the belief in the last day and 
the resurrection, the questioning of the two angels in the 
grave, and the belief in the pool (al-haud) and the balance. 1 
He who holds the above-mentioned doctrines, not mixing 
with his beliefs any of the heresies of the Khawarij, and 
the Raiidiyah and the Kadariyah and the rest of the un- 
orthodox ; such a one belongs to those who are to be saved ; 
may Allah preserve him in his belief. The majority of the 
Mohammedans are of this character, the greater number of 
whom are of the followers of Malik and Shaii'i, and abu- 
Hanlfah and al-Auza'i and al-Thauri and the Ahl al-Zahir. 
This then explains what we desired to explain in this part. 
In the part which follows we shall mention the divisions of 
the opinion of each sect of the heretical sects which we have 
mentioned, so it please Allah. 

1 Surah 108, 1-3; Surah 42, 6; 21, 47. : 



An explanation of the various opinions of the heretical 
sects and a detailed explanation of the heresies of each sect. 
This chapter contains eight sections, of which the following 
are the titles : 

I. An explanation of the opinions of the sects of the 

II. An explanation of the opinions of the sects of the 

III. An explanation of the opinions of the sects of the 
Mu'tazilah and the Kadariyah. 

IV. An explanation of the opinions of the sects of the 
Dirariyah, Bakriyah and Jahmlyah. 

V. An explanation of the opinions of the sect of the 

VI. An explanation of the opinions of the anthropomor- 
phists, found among the numerous sects which we 
have mentioned. 1 

In each of these chapters we shall mention what it is 
necessary to note, so it please Allah. 

1 Two left out . . . IV. Murji'ah and V. Najjariyah. 




The Sects of the Rawafid 

This chapter explains the opinions of the sects of the 
Rawafid. 1 

As we have already noted, the sect of the Zaidiyah was 
divided into three sects, the Kaisaniyah into two, and the 
Imamlyah into fifteen. We shall begin by treating of the 
Zaidiyah, then take up the Imamlyah and then the Kaisan- 
iyah in regular order, so it please Allah. 

i. Concerning the Jarudiyah from among the Zaidiyah. 

These are the followers of a man known as abu'l-Jarud. 2 
They claim that the Prophet designated 'All as Imam by 
his characteristics, 3 but not by name. They also claim that 
by ceasing to recognize 'AIT, the Companions became un- 
believers. Moreover, they say that al-Hasan ibn-'Ali was 
Imam after 'AH, and was followed by his brother al-Husain. 
Over this matter the Jarudiyah split into two sects. One 
sect said : " Verily 'AH designated as Imam his son al- 
Hasan, then al-Hasan designated as Imam after him his 
brother al-Husain. After al-Hasan and al-Husain, the 
Imamate became a matter of conference among the children 
of al-Hasan and al-Husain " ; the one of them who went 
forth from them (by their decision), unsheathing his sword 
and summoning to his faith, and at the same time was wise 
and godly, he was to be the Imam. The other sect asserted 

1 For term Rafidiyah cf. J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 137 ■ 

2 His full name is abu-'l-Jartid Ziyad ibn-al-Mundhir al-'Abdi. Mas'udi, 
Let Prairies d'Or, vol. v, p. 474; Friedlander, J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 22. 

3 Shahrastanl gives description: Ibn-IIazm omits question of Imftm- 



that the Prophet was the one who designated al-Hasan as 
23 Imam after 'AH, and al-Husain after al-Hasan. After this, 
the Jarudiyah split over the question of the expected Imam. 
One of their sects refrained from specifying any definite 
Imam, holding that everyone among the children of al- 
Hasan and al-Husain who " unsheathes his sword and 
summons to his faith, he is the Imam." Others awaited 
Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-'Ali ibn-abi- 
Talib. They would not believe that he had been slain, or 
that he had died, but claimed that he was the expected 
Mahdl who would come to reign over the world. This 
group joined with the Muhammadiyah from the Imamiyah 
in looking for Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn- 
'Ali as the expected Imam. Others awaited Muhammad 
ibn-al-Kasim, the master of Talakan, 1 and did not believe 
in his death. Still others looked for Muhammad ibn-'Umar, 
the one who appeared in al-Kufah, refusing to believe that 
he was slain or had died. This is the doctrine of the 
Jarudiyah. Their own heresy is proven by the fact that 
they declared the Companions of the Prophet of Allah to 
be heretics. 

2. Concerning the Sulaimaniyah 2 or the Jaririyah from 
among them. 

These followed Sulaiman ibn-Jarir al-Zaidi, who said 
that the Imamate was a matter of conference and could be 
confirmed by an agreement between two of the best men in 
Islam. He went so far as to claim as lawful the Imamate 
of a person even when possibly excelled by the other. He, 
however, sanctioned the Imamate of abu-Bakr and 'Umar, 
although he claimed that Islam forsook the right path when 
it invested them [with the caliphate], because 'All was 

1 Shahrastanl, Haarbrucker's translation, vol. i, p. 179. 
3 Longer account in ibid., vol. i, p. 180. 



more eligible to the Imamate than they. The sin of their 
recognition, however, did not, according to him, constitute 
heresy or apostacy. Sulaiman ibn-Jarir declared unortho- 
dox those who reproved him, while the orthodox in turn 
called Sulaiman ibn-Jarir unorthodox because he consid- 
ered 'Uthman unorthodox. Allah have mercy on him. 2 4 

3. Concerning the Butriyah. 

These followed two men, 1 one of whom was al-Hasan 
ibn-Salih ibn-Hai, and the other Kathir al-Munauwa, who 
is called al-Abtar. They agreed with Sulaiman ibn-Jarir of 
this group, differing from him only in that they did not 
commit themselves about 'Uthman, neither attacking his 
faults nor praising his virtues. Of the followers of Sulai- 
man ibn-Jarir, this sect is the best thought of by the ortho- 
dox. Muslim ibn-al-Hajjaj 2 has cited the tradition of al- 
Hasan ibn-Salih ibn-Hai in his collection called al-Sakih. 
Muhammad ibn-Isma'il al-Bukhari, 3 although not citing 
him in his al-Sahih, does say in his work entitled al-Tafrlkh 
cd-Kabir that al-Hasan ibn-Salih ibn-Hai al-Kufi was the 
pupil of Sammak ibn-Harb and died in the year 167. He 
was from the border-line of Hamadhan and his surname 
was abii-'Abdallah. 

'Abd-al-Kahir says: These Butriyah and Sulaimamyah 
from among the Zaidiyah, all of them called the Jarudiyah, 
of the Zaidiyah, unorthodox, because they affirmed the 
heresy of abu-Bakr and 'Umar. The Jarudiyah affirmed the 
Sulaimamyah and Butriyah heretics because they left uncon- 
demned the heresy of abu-Bakr and 'Umar. Our sheikh, 
abu-1-Hasan al-Ash'ari, 4 in one of his treatises tells of a 
section of the Zaidiyah called the Ya'kubiyah, followers of 

1 ShahrastanI makes these two sects. 

2 De Slane, Ibn-Khallikan, vol. iii, p. 34& 

3 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 594. * Ibid., vol. ii, p. 227. 



a man called Ya'kub, and states that they had accepted abu- 
25 Bakr and 'Umar, but they did not reject those who rejected 
the caliphate of the two latter. 'Abd-al-Kahir says that three 
of the sects of the Zaidlyah that we have mentioned agreed 
on the view that those who commit major sins within Islam 
would be forever in hell fire. In regard to this they re- 
semble the Khawarij, who give no hope of Allah's grace to 
prisoners of sin even though they be believers, whereas none 
but the unbelievers need really despair of the spirit 1 of 
Allah. These three sects and their followers are called 
Zaidlyah because of their acceptance of the Imamate of 
Zaid ibn-'Ali ibn-al-Hasan ibn-'Ali ibn-abi-Talib, in his 
time and the Imamate of his son, Yahya ibn-Zaid, after 
him. Zaid ibn-'AH was recognized as Imam by fifteen 
thousand men of the people of al-Kufah who went with 
him against the governor of al-Trak, Yusuf ibn-'Umar al- 
Thakafi, governor over the two Traks under Hisham ibn- 
'Abd-al-Malik. And when the war between him and 
Yusuf ibn-'Umar al-Thakafi had lasted some time, they 
said unto him : " We will help thee against thine enemies 
after thou hast told us thy views regarding abu-Bakr and 
'Umar who were unjust to thine ancestor 'AH ibn-abi-Talib." 
Zaid said : " I say naught against them except good, and I 
have never heard my father say anything except good of 
them, and I have set out against the Banu Umaiyah only 
because they fought against my ancestor al-Husain and 
attacked al-Madmah on the day of al-Harrah. They then 
demolished the Beit Allah with ballista and fire." Where- 
upon they deserted him [Zaid], who said to them: "Do 
you desert me also?" And from this day on they were 
called the Rafidah [Deserters]. There then remained 
with him Nasr ibn-Harimah al-'Ansi and Mu'awiyah ibn- 

1 The Arabic word used, denotes wind which brings relief. 



Ishak ibn-Yazid ibn-Harithah with about two hundred men, 
and they fought the army of Yusuf ibn-'Umar al-Thakafi 2 6 
until they were all killed, including Zaid. He was after- 
wards exhumed, crucified, and burned. His son Yahya ibn- 
Zaid fled to Khurasan, and rebelled in the district of Juza- 
jan against Nasr ibn-Bashshar, the governor of Khurasan, 
who sent against him Muslim ibn-Ahwaz al-Mazini with 
three thousand men, and they killed Yahya ibn-Zaid. His 
shrine in Juzajan is famous. 'Abd-al-Kahir says that the 
Rawafid of al-Kiifah are remarkable for perfidy and stingi- 
ness, so that a proverb has become current in regard to 
these qualities among them and the saying has grown up : 
" More stingy than a Kufite and more perfidious." Three 
instances of their perfidy have become widely known. First, 
after the slaying of 'AIT, they recognized al-Hasan his son, 
but when he went to fight against Mu'awlyah, they seized 
him by treachery in Sabat al-Mada'in and Sanan al-Ju'fi, 
one of their number, pierced his side and threw him 
from his horse; and this was one of the reasons for 
the peace made with Mu'awiyah. The second instance of 
their perfidy was that they wrote to al-Husain ibn-'Ali and 
invited him to come to al-Kufa so that they should help 
him against Yazld ibn-Mu'awiyah. He allowed himself to 
be deceived by them, and accepted their invitation, but 
when he reached Karbela', they seized him by treachery 
and made common cause with 'Ubaidallah ibn-Ziyad so that 
al-Husain was killed in Karbila', together with many of 
his family. Their third perfidy was against Yazid ibn-'Ali 
ibn-al-Husain ibn-'Ali ibn-abi-Talib, for after going out 
with him against Yusuf ibn-'Umar they broke their word 
to him [Yazid], which resulted in his being killed, and 
there befell what befell. 

4. Concerning the Kaisaniyah from among the Rawafkl. ^ 
These are the followers of al-Mukhtar ibn-abl-'Ubaid 



al-Thakaf 1 * who undertook to avenge the death of al- 
Husain ibn-'AH ibn-abi-Talib. He killed most of those who 
had killed al-Husain at Karbila'. He was al-Mukhtar, but 
he was called Kaisan. It is reported that he took his opin- 
ions from a freedman who belonged to 'All, whose name 
was Kaisan. 2 The Kaisaniyah split up into sects, to which 
two opinions are common; one of them is the Imamate of 
Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyah, whom al-Mukhtar ibn-abi- 
'Ubaid was accustomed to champion. The second [upon 
which they agreed] was that Allah might have had a be- 
ginning. Because of this heresy everyone who does not 
accept this doctrine about Allah, accuses them of being un- 
orthodox. These Kaisaniyah split over the Imamate of 
Muhammad ibn-al-Hanaf lyah. Some of them claimed that 
he became Imam after his father 'AH ibn-abi-Talib, prov- 
ing this by the fact that 'All, at the battle of the Camels, 
gave over the banner to him, 1 and said: "[Carrying this, 
attack] as thy father would attack, then thou wilt be praised. 
There is no good in war which does not rage." Others 
held that the Imamate after 'All went to his son al-Hasan, 
then to al-Husain, after al-Hasan, and then passed over to 
Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyah after his brother al-Husain, 
by the last will of his brother al-Husain, at the time when 
he fled from al-Madinah to Mecca, when his allegiance was 
sought for Yazid ibn-Mu'awiyah. This resulted in the 
splitting off of those who hold to the Imamate of Muham- 
mad ibn-al-Hanaf lyah. Some of those who are called al- 
Karibiyah are followers of abu-Karib al-Darir and claim 
that Muhammad ibn-al-Hanaf lyah is living and did not die, 
2 & that he is in Mt. Radwa, and near him is a fount of water 

*J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 33. Shahrastani gives two sects, 
Kaisaniyah and Mukhtariyah. This sect is sometimes even classed 
under the Imamiyah. Cf. Ibn-Hazm's division. 

2 Ibn-Khallikan, De Slane, vol. ii, p. 577- 



and a fount of honey, from which he derives his sustenance, 
while at his right, a lion, and at his left a panther guard 
him from his enemies until the time of his appearance. 1 
He is the expected Mahdi. The rest of the Kaisamyah be- 
lieve in the death of Muhammad ibn-al-Hanaf lyah but dis- 
agree about the Imam who should succeed him. There were 
some of them who claimed that the Imamate after him re- 
verted to the son of his brother, 'All ibn-al-Husain Zain 
al-'Abidin, while others hold that after him it should revert 
to abu-Hashim 'Abdallah ibn-Muhammad ibn-al-Hanaf lyah, 
so these split over the Imam to succeed abu-Hashim. Some 
transfer the Imamate to abu-Muhammad ibn-'Ali ibn- 
'Abdallah ibn-' Abbas ibn-'Abd-al-Muttalib, because abu- 
Hashim willed it to him. This latter is the view of the 
Rawandiyah. Others claimed the Imamate after abu- 
Hashim went to Bayan ibn-Sim'an, and they hold that the 
spirit of Allah was in abu-Hashim, and passed over from 
him to Bayan. While some claimed that this spirit passed 
from abu-Hashim to 'Abdallah ibn-'Amr ibn-Harb. This 
sect claims the divine character of the latter. As to the 
Bayamyah and the Harbiyah, both of them belonging to the 
Ghulat sects, we shall mention them in the section in which 
we mention the sects of the Ghulat. Kuthaiyir, the poet, 
was of the school of the Kaisamyah who hold that Mu- 
hammad ibn-al-Hanaf lyah is alive, and do not believe in his 
death. He says in his poem : 2 

" Indeed, the Imams of the Kuraish, the masters of truth, are four alike. 20 
'All and his three sons, they are the sires about whom there is 

naught hid. 
One sire is the sire of faith and piety, and the other sire Karbela 
reft from sight. 3 

1 On the part of animals in Messianic ideals see Friedlander, J. A. 
O. S., vol. xxix, p. 37 ff. 

2 Kitdb al-Aghani 8, 32. Mas'udi, Les Prairies d'Or, vol. v, p. 182. 
Ibn-Kutaibah ed. De Goeje, p. 329. 

3 Mas'idi gives it " Hidden from all sight/' 



Ajid a third does not taste death until he leads the horsemen, the 

banner preceding, 
He disappeared and was not seen among them for a season, hidden 

in Radwa, near him are honey and water." x 

'Abd-al-Kahir answers these verses with the words : 

" The masters of truth are four, but as to the second of the two, his 

fame has preceded him, 
And Faruk, of the world, appeared as Imam, following him Dhul 

Nunain who met his death. 
'Ali appeared after them as Imam, in the order in which I have 

given them. 
The decree came from above, and hateful are they whom we mention 

as accursed. 
To the fire of hell have they been relegated, and the sectaries are a 

people like unto the Christians, 
Confused ones, for their confusion there is no healing." 

And Kuthaiyir also said about sectaries : 2 

"lam free to go to Allah, and free from connection with ibn Arwi, 
and free from the religion of the Khawarij. 
And free from 'Umar and Abu-Bakr, at the time when he was declared 
emir of the faithful" 

These verses we have answered with the following : 

"Thou art indeed free, but from Allah, through the hatred of the 

people, through whom Allah has kept alive the faithful. 

And hatred of thine harms not ibn-Arwa, the hatred of piety is the 

religion of the unbelievers. 
Abw-Bakr, I rejoice in him as Imam, despite all the anger of the 
30 'Umar, the Faruk of the world, is rightly called the emir of the 

[Saiyid says : 3 ] 

" Say to al Wasy : ' I would give my life for thee, thou hast stayed in 
this mount a long time, 
They persecute in the community those of us who follow thee, and 
who proclaim thee caliph and Imam. 

1 De Slane, Ibn-Khallikan, vol. II, p. 577. 
3 Ibn-Kutaibah, ibid., p. 316. Ibn Arwa = Uthman. 
3 Mas'udi, Les Prairies d'Or, vol. v, p. 182. 



And all the people of the earth were inimical to thee during thy stay 

with them for sixty years. 
The son of Khawla [name of the Haniflte mother of Muhammad] 

has not tasted of death, and the earth does not hold his bones. 1 
And verily he has the sustenance of an Imam, and drink is provided 

and with it food.' " 

This po€m we answered with the words : 

" Lo thy life has passed in waiting, for the one whose bones the 

ground holds. 
And there is no Imam in the valley of Radwa, around whom the 

angels bandy words. 
And there are no streams of honey and water beside him, nor is 

drink provided, and with it food. 
And ibn Khawla has tasted of death, just as his father tasted of 

If any man could have lived for ever on account of his greatness. 

verily the chosen one [Muhammad] would have lived for ever." 

The poet known by the name of Saiyid al-Himyari was 
also of the school of the Kaisaniyah who looked for the 
coming of Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyah, and claimed that 
he is imprisoned at Mt. Radwa until he is called to appear. 
And about this he says in a poem of his : 

" But everyone who is on the earth disappears — 
This is the decree of him who created the Imam." 

The first who arose to preach the doctrine of the Kaisan- 
iyah in regard to the Imamate of Muhammad ibn-al- 
Hanafiyah was al-Mukhtar ibn-abi-'Ubaid al-Thakafl. The *- 
reason for this was that 'Ubaidallah ibn-Ziyad* when he 
had killed Muslim ibn-'Akil, and al-Husain ibn-'AH, was 

1 Not in Mas'udi. 

8 For Messianic ideals in Islam cf. Van Vloten, Chiitisme, p. 54 ff.; 
Friedlander, "Die Messias Idee im Islam" (in Festschrift zum joten 
Geburtstage A. Berliner's, Frankfurt A. M. 1903, pp. 1 16-130, especially 
pp. 121 ff. and p. 127.) 

3 Tabarl, Chronique; ed. Zotenberg, vol. iv, p. 18 et seq. 

4 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 34. 



told that al-Mukhtar ibn-abi-'Ubaid was one of those who 
had rebelled with Muslim ibn-'Aldl. He had then disap- 
peared, and when, having been ordered to return, he came 
to ibn-Ziyad, the latter threw a club which was in his hand 
and cut his eye. He then imprisoned him. Some of the 
people, however, plead with him in favor of al-Mukhtar, so 
that he brought him out of prison and said to him : " I give 
thee three days, and lo during that time thou shalt go away 
from al-Kufah, else I will behead thee." Al-Mukhtar then 
fled from al-Kufah to Mecca, where he swore allegiance to 
'Abdallah ibn-al-Zubair, 1 remaining with him until ibn-al- 
Zubair fought the army of Yazid ibn-Mu'awiyah, which 
was under the command of al-Husain ibn-Numair al-Sukuti. 
Al-Mukhtar distinguished himself in these wars against the 
people of Syria. Then Yazid ibn-Mu'awiyah died, and the 
Syrian army returned to Syria while the command of al- 
Hijaz. al-Yaman, al-Trak and Persia remained with ibn-al- 
Zubair. Al-Mukhtar having suffered evil treatment from 
ibn-al-Zubair, fled to al-Kufah. The governor of this city 
was at that time 'Abdallah ibn- Yazid al-Ansari, 2 under 
'Abdallah ibn-al-Zubair. When he [al-Mukhtar] entered 
al-Kufah he sent his messengers to the sectaries of al- 
Kufah and its districts up to al-Mada'in demanding their 
allegiance to him and promising them that he was coming 
to claim their revenge for al-Husain ibn-' AH. He invited 
them to recognize Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyah, claiming 
that al-Hanaf lyah had chosen him as caliph, and that it was 
he [al-Hanafiyah] who had commanded them to obey him 
32 [al-Mukhtar]. It was at this time that ibn-al-Zubair re- 
moved 'Abdallah ibn- Yazid al-Ansari from the governor- 
ship of al-Kufah and put in his place 'Abdallah ibn-Mutr 
al-'Adawi. The number of those who recognized al-Mukh- 

1 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 610 et seq. 
*Ibi4., vol. iv, pp. 58, 66, 69, 81. 


tar * and gathered around him amounted to seventeen thou- 
sand. Among them was 'Ubaidallah ibn-al-Hirr, who en- 
tered into allegiance with him. There was no braver than 
al-Hirr in his day. Ibrahim ibn-Malik al-Ashtar also 
joined 2 al-Mukhtar. Among the secretaries of al-Kufah 
there was not a finer one than he, nor one who had 
more followers. Al-Mukhtar set out with these men 
against the governor of al-Kufah, 'Abdallah ibn-Muti', who 
on that day was at the head of twenty thousand. 3 The 
strife between them lasted for several days. At the end of 
this time the Zaidiyah were defeated and fled, and al-Mukh- 
tar made himself governor over al-Kufah and its surround- 
ings. He also killed all those in al-Kufah who had fought 
against al-Husain ibn-'AH at Karbila'. Then he delivered 
the khutbah before the people and said : " Praise be to 
Allah who promised his friend victory and his enemy harm, 
and definitely put both of them in this condition, a final dis- 
position of them and a decisive settlement. O men, we 
have heard the invitation of the preacher and we have 
received the view of the preacher how many tyrants, male 
and female, and how many murderers do we recall ?" 4 
Bring hither the servants of Allah to swear allegiance to 
the proper leader and to fight the enemy, and lo, I am the 
leader of those who mourn, and the investigator of the 
murder of the son of the daughter of the seal of the 
prophets." He then descended from his pulpit and sent a 
message by the head of his body-guard to the house of 
'Umar ibn-Sa'd, 5 to cut off his head. He then cut off the 

1 Wellhausen, Religios-P otitis chen Oppositionsparteien im Alten Islam, 
pp. 28 et seq. 

2 Tabari, Chronique ed. Zotenberg, vol. iv, pp. 81 et seq. 

3 Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 81 et seq. 

4 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 632. 

5 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 75 et seq. 



head of his son Ja'far ibn-'Umar who was the son of the 
sister of al-Mukhtar, and he said : " That is for the head of 
al-Husain; and this is for the head of the son of al-Husain 
33 the great." After this he sent Ibrahim ibn-Malik al-Ashtar 
with six thousand men for the battle against 'Ubaidallah 
ibn-Ziyad, who was at that time in al-Mausil with eighty 
thousand of the Syrian army, over whom 'Abd-al-Malik ibn- 
Marwan 1 had placed him as governor. When the two 
armies met at the gate of al-Mausil, the Syrian army was 
put to flight and seventy thousand of them were killed on 
the field of battle, including 'Ubaidallah ibn-Ziyad and al- 
Husain ibn-Numair al-Sukuti. Ibrahim ibn-al-Ashtar sent 
their heads to al-Mukhtar, who, when he had succeeded in 
becoming governor of al-Kufah, al-Jazirah and of al-Mahin 
[Persia] as far as the border of Armenia, claimed that he 
was a kahin, who wrote rhymed prose like the rhymed prose 
of the kahins. It is also said that he claimed an inspira- 
tion had come to him ; and a specimen of his rhymed prose 
is as follows : " By him who has sent down the Koran; and 
revealed the Book; and given the laws for religion; and 
who disapproves of disobedience; I will kill al-Nu'at 2 of 
al-Azd and 'Uman, and of Madhhij and Hamadhan, and of 
Nahd and Khaulan, and of Bakr and of Hazzan, and of 
Thu'al and of Nabhan, and of 'Abs and of Dhubyan, and 
of Kais and of 'Allan." Then he said : " By the All-hearing 
onej the Knowing, the Mighty, the Lofty, the Powerful, the 
Wise, the Merciful, the Compassionate, verily I will crush 
completely the leaders of the Bani Tahim [Tamim?]." 

Then the news of al-Mukhtar reached ibn-al-Hanafiyah 
and he was afraid of a religious strife, and desired to go 
against al-'Irak so that those who believed in his Imamate 
should gather around him. Al-Mukhtar, hearing this, was 

1 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 75 et seq. 

s I. Goldziher, Abhandhmgen zur Arabischen Philologie, p. 65. 



afraid of his arrival in al-Trak, for fear he would rob him 
of his leaders and governors. So he said to his army : " I 
swear allegiance to the Mahdi, but the Mahdi has a sign, 
c. g., that he shall be struck by a blow of a sword, and the 
sword shall not cut his skin; such a man is the Mahdi." 34 
This speech of his was reported to ibn-al-Hanafiyah, and 
he remained in Mecca fearing that al-Mukhtar might kill 
him if he went to al-Kufah. Then the Sabbabiyah of the 
Ghulat of the Randan tricked al-Mukhtar, and said to him : 
" Thou art the ultimate authority of this age." * And they 
persuaded him to claim that he was a prophet. This he did, 
asserting among his intimates that a revelation had come 
down to him, whereupon he said in rhymed prose : " By 
the hurrying of the clouds, and by the heavy punishment, 
and by the swift reckoning, and by the rich giver, and by 
the powerful conqueror, verily I shall open the grave of 
ibn-Shihab, the betrayer, the liar, the unbelieving sinner. 
Again, by the Lord of the two worlds, and by the Lord of 
the faithful land, verily I will kill the hateful poet, the rajiz 
[ra/<2£-metre] poet of the heretics, and the friends of the 
heretics, and the supporters of the unrighteous, and the 
brothers of satans, who gathered together for worthless 
objects, and forged tales against me. Hail to those of 
praiseworthy character; and of good deeds and of ready 
thought, and fortunate soul." After this he preached and 
said in his khutbah: " Praise be unto Allah, who has made 
me a knowing one, and has enlightened my heart. By Allah, 
verily I will burn the dwelling places in this region. And 
verily I will open the graves there. And verily I will save 
some of them. And Allah is sufficient as a leader and 
helper." Then he swore and said: " By the 1 Lord of the 
sacred enclosure, and by the sacred house, and by the hon- 

1 De Slane, Ibn-Khallikan, vol. i, p. 229 ; ii, p. 12. 



ored comer of the Ka'bah, and by the esteemed mosque, 
and by the possessor of the pen; verily a standard will be 
raised for me from here to Adam/ and then to the borders 
of Dhi Salam." Then he said : " Verily, by the lord of 
heaven, fire shall be sent down from heaven; and verily it 
35 will burn the house of Asma'." These words reached Asma' 
ibn-Kharijah and he said : " Abu-Ishak has attacked me in 
rhymed prose and now he will burn my house." So he fled 
from his house, and al-Mukhtar sent someone to burn his 
house during the night, pretending to those around him 
that fire from heaven was sent down to burn it. It was after 
this that the people of al-Kufah went out against al-Mukh- 
tar for posing as a kahin. 2 The Sabbabiyah gathered 
around him, together with the slaves of the people of al- 
Kufah, because he had promised to give them the possessions 
of their masters. And he fought with them against those 
who had gone out against him, conquering them and killing 
most of them: the rest he took prisoner, and among these 
was a man called Surakah ibn-Mirdas al-Bariki; he was 
brought to al-Mukhtar, and fearing that the latter would 
order his death, he said to those who imprisoned him and 
brought him to al-Mukhtar : " Ye are not the ones who 
have taken us prisoners, nor are ye the ones that have de- 
feated us with your force ; on the contrary, it is the angels 
who have defeated us, the angels whom we saw on mottled 
horses above your soldiers." Al-Mukhtar admired his 
words, and freed him, whereupon he went to Mus'ab ibn- 
al-Zubair in al-Basrah, and from there he wrote these verses 
to al-Mukhtar : 3 

1 Wide valley in al-Hijaz. Cf. Mitller, al-Hamadani : Geographic der 
Arabischen Halbinsel, p. 171. 

3 Abu'l-Mahasin, vol. i, p. 198, ed. Juynboll. 

3 Variants in Kitdb al-Aghdnl vol. vii, p. 32. Cf. Dinawari, Kitdb al- 
Akhbdr al-Tiwdl, p. 309. Pub. by Vladimir Giurgass. 



" Lo, tell abi-Ishak that I have seen silent the mottled black [horses] 
I show my eyes what neither of them sees, and what they both believe 

to be an invention. 
I denounce your revelation, and take a vow to fight you until death." 

In what we have here recounted is to be found the reason 
of al-Mukhtar' s posing as a kahin, and claiming a revelation 
for himself. xA.s to the reason for his words claiming that 
Allah may have had a beginning, the following incident ex- 
plains it. When Ibrahim ibn-al-Ashtar heard that al-Mukh- 
tar was posing as a kahin and claiming inspiration for him- 
self, he ceased his help and governed the territory of Meso- 3^ 
potamia for himself. When Mus'ab ibn-al-Zubair learned 
that Ibrahim ibn-al-Ashtar had deserted al-Mukhtar, he 
longed to subdue al-Mukhtar. In this, he was joined by 
'Ubaidallah ibn-al-Hirr al-Ju'afi and Muhammad ibn-al- 
Ash'ath al-Kindi, 1 as well as most of the leaders of al- 
Kufah, who were irritated against al-Mukhtar for having 
seized their possessions and slaves ; the latter inciting Mus'ab 
to covet the seizure of al-Kufah by force. Mus'ab set forth 
from al-Basrah with seven thousand men of his own, in ad- 
dition to those leaders of al-Kufah who had made common 
cause with him. As commander over the van of his army 
he set al-Muhallab ibn-abu-Sufrah 2 with his following of 
the Azd. The command of the cavalry he gave to 'Ubai- 
dallah ibn-Ma'mar 3 al-Taiml. Over the Tamimite cavalry 
he placed al-Ahnaf ibn-Kais. 4 When news of them reached 
al-Mukhtar, he sent out his commander Ahmad ibn-Shumait 
to fight Mus'ab with three thousand picked soldiers, telling 
them that the victory would be theirs. He claimed that a 
revelation had come to him concerning this. The two 

1 Tabarl, ibid., vol. v, p. 97. 

2 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 97. 

5 Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 513, 563. 
* Ibid., vol. iii, p. 449 et seq. 



armies met at al-Mada'in, and the followers of al-Mukhtar 
were put to flight, and their emir, ibn-Shumait, was killed, 
together with most of al-Mukhtar's leaders. And the rem- 
nant returned to al-Mukhtar and said to him : " Why didst 
thou promise us victory over our enemies?" And he said: 
" Indeed, Allah has promised this to me, but he suddenly 
changed his mind." He went on to prove this regarding 
Allah with the words of the Koran : " What he pleaseth 
will God abrogate or confirm." x And this is how the 
Kaisaniyah came to believe that Allah may have had a be- 
37 Al-Mukhtar then took upon himself the killing of Mus'ab 
ibn al-Zubair in al-Madhar 2 in the region of al-Kuf ah. And 
in this engagement Muhammad ibn-al-Ash'ath al-Kindi was 
killed. Al-Mukhtar said : " His death pleases me because 
he is the only one remaining of those who killed al-Husain, 
and now I am not afraid of death." After this al-Mukhtar 
and his allies were put to flight, and they fled to the resi- 
dence of the Imam in al-Kufah, and fortified themselves in 
it with four hundred followers. And Mus'ab besieged them 
three days until their food gave out, and on the fourth day 
they made a sally, seeking death, and were slaughtered, and 
al-Mukhtar was killed with them. Two brothers called 
Tarif and Tarif killed him; they were the sons of 'Abdallah 
ibn-Dajajah of the Banu Hanifah. A'sha Hamdan * says 
about them : 

"I have prophesied, and the prophets have gained renown, 
Through the evil things that happened in al-Madhar, 
And I am naturally not pleased with the destruction of my people 
Even if it happened, for they were in an evil strait. 
But I rejoice over that which abu-Ishak suffers, through mortification 
and shame." 

1 Surah, 13, v. 39. 

2 Yakut, vol. iv, p. 468. 

s Kitdb al-Aghdni, vol. v, pp. 146-161. 



This is an explanation of the view of the Kaisaniyah that 
Allah may have a beginning. But some of the Kaisaniyah 
who looked for Muhammad ibn-al-Hanafiyah differed over 
this latter question, claiming that he was alive, imprisoned 
at Mt. Radwa, till the time of his summoning. Over the 
reason of his imprisonment there, they disagreed; some 
saying that " Allah is secret in his affairs, no one knows 
them except he, and he gives no explanation for the reason 
of his imprisonment." While others said : " Verily Allah 
punished him by this imprisonment, because after the death 
of al-Husain ibn-'AH he went over to Yazid ibn-Mu'awiyah, 38 
and because he demanded peace of him, and accepted lar- 
gesses from him.' , Moreover because he fled from ibn-al- 
Zubair in Mecca to 'Abd al-Malik ibn-Marwan. And they 
claimed that his companion 'Amir ibn-Wathilah al-Kinam x 
came before him, and spoke to his followers about this de- 
parture of his in the following words :"Omy brothers, O 
my helpers, do not depart, but stand by the Mahdi, so that 
ye may be led. O Muhammad, the generous one, O Mu- 
hammad, thou art the Imam, the pure, the right leader, not 
ibn-al-Zubair al-Samiri, the heretic, nor is he the one whom 
we set up as a goal." But it was said that he should have 
fought ibn-al-Zubair, and not have fled. By refusing to 
fight him he disobeyed his master, and further disobeyed 
him by seeking out 'Abd-al-Malik ibn-Marwan. But even 
before this he had been disobedient by seeking out Yazid 
ibn-Mu'awiyah. It was after this that he mended his ways, 
and joined ibn-Marwan in al-Ta'if. And ibn-' Abbas died 
there, and was buried there by ibn-al-Hanafiyah. From 
there the latter went to al-Dhar [in Khurasan, near Buk- 
hara] . But as to what occurred when he reached the pass 
of Radwa, they differ. Those believing in his death, hold 
that he died there; while those expecting his return say that 

1 Tabarl, ibid., vol. iv, p. 130. 



Allah imprisoned him there, and hid him from the eyes of 
men, as a punishment for the sins which they attributed to 
him, until he is bidden to come forth. And he is the ex- 
pected Mahdi. 

5. Concerning the Imamiyah of the Rafidah. 

These are the Imamiyah who divided off from the Zaid- 
lyah, the Kaisaniyah, and the Ghulat into fifteen sects : 1 
the Kamiliyah, the Muhammadiyah, the Bakiriyah, the 
39 Nawisiyah, the Shamitiyah, the 'Amariyah, the Isma'iliyah, 
the Mubarakiyah, the Musawiyah, the Kati'iyah, the Twelv- 
ers (Ithna 'Ashariyah), the Hishamiyah, the Zarariyah, 
the Yunusiyah, and the Shaitaniyah. 

a. Concerning the Kamiliyah from among them : 

These are the followers of a man from the Rafidah who 
was known as abu-Kamil. 2 He claimed that the Compan- 
ions were unorthodox because they forsook their allegiance 
to 'All, and he condemned k Ali for ceasing to fight them, as 
he was bound to fight the people of Siffin. Bashshar ibn- 
Burd, 3 the blind poet, belonged to this school. The report 
is that someone said to him : " What is thy opinion regard- 
ing the Companions?" And he replied that they were un- 
orthodox. He was then asked : " And what is thy opinion 
of 'All?" And he quoted the words of the poet: i 

" What is the evil of the three caliphs O Umm 'Umar 
Against thy friend who does not accompany us ? " 

1 Ibn-FIazm is vague as to divisions. Shahrastanl gives the Imamiyak 
alone; under the Bakiriyah, and Ja'farlyah, he gives the Nawisiyah, 
Aftahlyah, Shamitiyah, Musawiyah, Isma'iliyah and Twelvers. 

2 Shahrastanl, ibid., vol. i, p. 201. 

3 Brockelmann, Arabische Literatur, vol i, p. 73. Von Kremer, Kuliur- 
geschichtliche Streifzuge, pp. 37 et seq. Goldziher, Muhammedonische 
Studien, p. 162. Ibn-Kutaibah, Kitdb al-Shi'r, ed. Cairo, p. 188. 

4 Kitdb al-Aghdni, vol. iii, pp. 19-72; vol. vi, pp. 47-52. 



It is also reported that to this sin of condemning the Com- 
panions and 'AH among them, Bashshar added two other 
sins : one the belief that the dead would return to the world 
before the day of resurrection, as the partisans of the Re- 
turn 1 hold among the Rafidah, and the other, that Satan 
is right in preferring fire to earth. As a proof of this they 
gave the views of Bashshar in one of his poems : 

" The earth is dark and fire is light, 
And fire has been worshipped since it existed." 

To this Saf wan al-Ansari replied in the following poem : 

"Thou didst think that fire was the finest thing as to its origin 
And upon the earth it is lighted by means of stone and fire-stick 
And wonderful things were formed in its innermost parts which can 4" 

not be counted in line or in number. 
And in the very depths of the seas there are useful things. 

You blame the moons, even though you are deformed, and nearest 4 2 
among the creations of Allah, to the genus ape." 

Hammad u 'Ajrad satarized Bashshar and said: 

" O, thou who art viler than an ape, even when the ape is blind." 
It is reported, however, that Bashshar was untroubled by 
the satire in this verse, and merely replied : 

" Let him see me and describe me, 
Only may I not see and describe him." 

•Abd al-Kahir says: "I declare these Kamiliyah unortho- 
dox for two reasons. First because they condemn all of 
the Companions without specification, and secondly because 
they preferred fire to earth. Some of the disgraceful here- 
sies of Bashshar ibn-Burd we have mentioned; and we feel 
that Allah has done to him what he deserves, for he satir- 

iRaj'ah=: return as same person. Tandsukh = return as a different 

2 Ibn-Kutaibah ed. De Goeje, p. 49°- 



ized the Mahdi, who therefore commanded him to be 
thrown into the Tigris, which is a disgrace to him in this 
world, and to his followers, a painful punishment in the 

b. Concerning the Muhammadiyah. 1 
These expect Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn- 
al-Husain ibn-'Ali ibn-abi-Talib ; nor do they believe that 
he was murdered, nor that he died ; they claim that he is in 
Mt. Hajir, in the district of Najd, until he shall be com- 
43 manded to return. In the error of his anthropomorphistic 
ideas al-Mughirah ibn-Sa'id al-Tjli 2 said to his compan- 
ions : " Verily the expected Mahdi is Muhammad ibn-'Ab- 
dallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain ibn-'AH." As the proof 
of this he claimed that his name was the same as that of 
Muhammad the Prophet of Allah; and his father's name 
was 'Abdallah like the name of the father of the Prophet of 
Allah. And in a hadlth dating from the time of the Prophet, 
he quotes these words about the Mahdi : 3 " His name will 
correspond to my name, and his father's name to the name 
of my father." And when Muhammad ibn-' Abdallah ibn- 
al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain ibn-'AH began his preaching in al- 
Madinah, he made himself master of Mecca and al-Madi- 
nah, while his brother 4 Ibrahim ibn-' Abdallah made himself 
governor of al-Basrah and their third brother Idrls ibn- 
' Abdallah took possession of several of the districts of the 
Maghrib. 5 That was in the time of the caliph abu-Ja'far 
al-Mansur, Avho sent 'Isa ibn-Musa with a large army 

1 J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 30. Not to be confused with the Mukasa- 
madiyah who believe in the divinity of Muhammad the Prophet. 

2 Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, pp. 203, 218. 

3 Friedlander, J. A. O. S., vol. xxix., pp. 43 e t seq. 
4 7abarl, ibid., vol. iv, p. 326. 

9 Ibid., voL iv, p. 458. 



against Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-al- 
Husain. They fought and killed Muhammad in a battle at 
al-Madmah. He then sent 'Isa ibn-Musa to make war on 
Ibrahim ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain ibn-'AH. 
They killed Ibrahim at the gate of Himrin, sixteen para- 
sangs from al-Kufah. It was in this sedition that Idris ibn- 
'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain died in al-Maghrib. 
They say he was poisoned there. The father of these three 
brothers, 'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain, died in the 
jail of al-Mansur. His tomb is in al-Kadisiyah and is well 44 
known and frequented by pilgrims. When Muhammad 
ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-al-Husain was killed in al- 
Madinah, the Mughiriyah divided into two sects, one of 
which acknowledged his death and denounced al-Mughirah 
ibn-Sa'Id al-Tjli. This sect said : " Indeed, he lied when he 
said that Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan ibn-al- 
Husain was the Mahdi who should rule the earth, for he has 
been killed and does not rule the earth." The other sect 
persisted in its adherence to al-Mughirah ibn-Sa'id al- Ijli. 
saying: "Indeed, he is right in saying that the Mahdi is 
Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ; verily he was not killed, but has 
merely disappeared from the sight of men, and is on Mt. 
Hajir in the region of Najd, remaining there until he is 
commanded to return. He will return and rule the earth, 
and allegiance will be paid him in Mecca between the comer 
of the Ka'bah and the Makam. 1 At that time, seventeen 
men will be brought to life, each one of whom will be given 
one of the letters from the name of the most Holy, and they 
will put the armies to flight." These claim that the one 
whom the army of 'Isa ibn-Musa killed in al-Madinah was 
not Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan. This sect is 
called al-Muhammadiyah, because they look for the coming 

1 Halting place for prayer. 




of Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan. Jabir ibn-Yazid 
al-Ju'afi belonged to this sect. He was wont to speak of 
the return of the dead to this world before the resurrection. 
On this subject, a poet of this sect has said in one of his 
poems : 

" Up to the day in which men return 
To their world before their day of reckoning." 

Those who hold our views say to this sect : " If you assert 
that he who was killed in al-Madinah was other than Mu- 
hammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan, and you assert that 
the one killed there was Satan transformed into man 
in the person of Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan, 
then believe also that those killed at Karbila were other 
than al-Husain and his companions, that they were only 
devils having put on the form of men in the person of al- 
Husain and his companions ; then look for al-Husain as ye 
look for Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al-Hasan, or then 
look for 'All as the Sabbabiyah among you look for him. 
They claim that he is among the clouds, and that the one 
whom 'Abd-al-Rahman ibn-Muljim killed was Satan trans- 
formed into a man in the person of 'AH." This shows there 
is no difference between them and him. May Allah be 
praised for this. 

c. Concerning the Bakiriyah among them. 

This people transfer the Imamate from 'All ibn-abi- 
Talib, through his children to Muhammad ibn-'AH, the one 
who was known as al-Bakir. They say : " Verily, 'AH 
designated his son al-Hasan for the Imamate; al-Hasan 
designated his brother al-Husain ; al-Husain designated his 
son 'AH ibn-al-Husain Zain-al-'Abidin and Zain-al-'Abidin 
called to the Imamate Muhammad ibn-'AH known as al- 
Bakir: they claim that he is the expected Mahdi, concern- 



ing whom it is related that the prophet said to Jabir ibn- 
'Abdallah al-Ansari : * " Verily, thou wilt see him and 
greet him from me." Jabir was the last of the Compan- 
ions to die in al-Madinah. It happened that he was blind 
at the end of his life, and was wont to go around in al- 
Madinah exclaiming, " O Bakir, O Bakir, when shall I 
meet thee?" On a certain day he passed through one of 
the streets of al-Madinah .... [page wanting in the 
original ms.]. Ja'far designated his son Isma'il to the 46 
Imamate after him; when Isma'il died during the life of 
his father, we learned that he had designated his son merely 
to guide the people to choose as Imam his son Muhammad 
ibn-Isma'il. It is to this view that the Isma'Iliyah of the 
Batimyah inclined. We will mention them later among the 
sects of the Ghulat. 

d. Concerning the sect of the Musawiyah from among 

These are the ones who transferred the Imamate to 
Ja'far. 2 Then they claimed that the Imam after Ja'far 
was his son Musa ibn- Ja'far, and they claimed that Musa. 
ibn- Ja'far 3 was alive, and not dead, and that he was the 
expected Mahdi. They said that he went into the house of 
al-Rashid and has not come forth from it; [adding] we are 
sure of his Imamate ; but we have doubts of his death and 
we would not decide on it without proof." And it was 
said to this sect which was called the Musawiyah : " If you 
doubt his being alive and his death, then doubt his Imam- 
ate, and do not assert definitely that he is in existence and 
that he is the expected Mahdi; all the more so since you 
know that the burial-place of Musa ibn- Ja'far is well known 

1 Ibn-IJajar, Biographical Dictionary, vol. i, p. 432. 
' 2 De Slane, Ibn-Khallikan, vol. i, p. 300. 
3 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 463- 



in the western part of Baghdad, and is visited." And this 
sect is called the Musawiyah because it looks for Musa ibn- 
Ja'far; and it is also called the Mamturah because Yunus 
ibn- k Abd-al-Rahman al-Kummi was among the al-Kati'Iyah, 
in a debate with a member of the sect he said the f ollowin°- : 
" You are of less account in my eyes than the Mamturah 
dogs [dogs rained upon]." 

47 e . Concerning the Mubarakiyah. 

They desired the Imamate to go to the son of Muham- 
mad ibn-Isma/il ibn-Ja'far x as the Batiniyah claim; but the 
genealogists say in their books that Muhammad ibn-Isma'il 
ibn-Ja'far died and left no offspring. 

f. Concerning the branch called the al-KatiTyah from 
among them. 

These transferred the Imamate from Ja'far al-Sadik to 
his son Musa, and believe in the cTeath of Musa, and claim 
that the Imam who succeeded him was the grandson of 
Muhammad ibn-al-Hasan, who was a grandson of 'All ibn- 
Musa al-Rida. They were also called Twelvers, 2 because 
of their assertion that this expected Mahdi would be the 
twelfth in line from 'AH ibn-abl-Talib. And they differed 
over the age of this twelfth Imam at the death of his father. 
Some said that he was four years old, and some that he 
was eight years old. They also differed over his right to 
rule at that time; some claiming that even then he was 
really Imam, knowing all that an Imam should know, obe- 
dience to him being obligatory; while others claimed that 
although under age, he was theoretically Imam, for no 
other could be Imam, decisions meanwhile being in the 
hands of the learned men of the school until his coming of 

1 Friedlander, J. A. O. S., vol. xxviii, pp. 58-69. The Seveners be- 
lieved him to be the last Imam. 

2 Ibid., vol. xxix, p. 171, cf. Ithna'ashariyah. 



age, at which time this Imamate was definitely recognized - 
and to whom obedience was due ; and that he is now the 
Imam to whom obedience is due, although he is absent. 1 

g. Concerning those called the Hishamiyah among them. 2 
Of these two sects, one owes its origin to Hisham ibn-al- 
Hakam al-Rafid 3 and the other to Hisham ibn-Salim 4 al- 
Jawaliki. To their true doctrines in regard to the Imamate 48 
these two sects added the error of predicating a body to 
Allah, as well as their heresy as regards anthropomorphisms. 
Concerning the views of Hisham ibn-al-Hakam : Hisham 
ibn-al-Hakam claimed that that which he worshipped was a 
body possessing dimensions, height, breadth and thickness, 
its height being equal to its breadth and to its depth, while 
its length and breadth are specified only as long and broad. 
He held, moreover, that its extension upward is no greater 
than its breadth. In addition, he claimed that the object 
that he worshipped was a diffusing light, shining as a pure 
chain of silver, and as a pearl perfectly rounded. This 
object also possessed, according to him, color, taste, smell, 
touch. 5 He also claims that its color is its taste, its taste 
its smell, its smell its touch. He does not say that color 
and taste are its essence, but he claims that the object 
itself is color and taste. He went on to say that Allah was, 
when space was not, and it was by his own motion that he 
created space, space thus appearing for the first time, and it 
is in this space that Allah is, and this space is his throne. 

1 Ibid., vol. xxviii, p. 53. 

2 Not to be confused with the Hishamiyah of the Mu'tazilites. 
3 Ibid., vol. xxvii, p. 65. ShahrastanI, ibid., vol. i, p. 212. Mas'udi, 

ibid., vol. v, pp. 443 et seq., vol. vi, pp. 370 et seq., vol. vii, p. 232 et seq. 

4 Ai-Fihrist, p. 17/. 

5 Cf. M. Horten, Philosophischen Systeme der spekulativcn Thcologen 
im Islam, p. 170. ^ShahrastanI, ibid., vol. i. p. 87. 



Some report of Hisham that he described the object which 
he worshipped as seven spans [measured] by his own span, 
as if he had measured him according to human measure- 
ment, since in the majority of cases man is seven spans by 
his own span. 

Abu-al-Hudhail in one of his books says that he met 
Hisham ibn-al-Hakam in Mecca near the mount of abu- 
Kubais ' and asked him which of the two was greater, the 
being he worshipped or this mountain. He answered, 
pointing to it : " The mountain towers above him, the ex- 
alted, i. e. verily the mountain is greater than he." 2 
aq Ibn-al-Rawandi relates in one of his books about Hisham 
that he said : " There is a likeness between Allah and bodies 
that can be felt in some way; if this were not so, they would 
not point to Him." 

Al-Jahiz, in one of his books, says about Hisham : that he 
said that Allah knows what is under the earth only by means 
of the rays that come from him and penetrate to the depths 
of the earth. And they said, unless his rays touched what 
was behind the moving bodies, he would not have seen what 
is behind it, nor would he have known about it. Abu-'Isa 
al-Warrak said in his book that some of Hisham's compan- 
ions answered him that Allah touches his throne, but is not 
separate from it; nor is the throne separate from him. It 
is also reported that Hisham, in addition to his error con- 
cerning the Tauhid [unity], erred concerning the attributes 
of Allah. He changed the opinion that Allah does not cease 
knowing things, claiming that he knows things after not 
having known them, through knowledge, and that knowl- 
edge is one of his attributes, not identical with him, nor is 
it anything other than he, nor is it a part of him. He said, 

1 The highest in the range around Mecca. De Goeje, Bibliotheca 
Geographorum Arabicorum, vol. vii, p. 314. 

2 Friedlander, ibid., vol. xxix, p. 27. 



moreover, that his knowledge cannot be said to be eternal, 
nor created, for it is an attribute, and according to him an 
attribute cannot be predicated. About the power of Allah, 
and his hearing, and his seeing, and his life, and his will, 
he said, verily they are not eternal nor created, because an 
attribute cannot be predicated. And he said in regard to 
them that they are he and no other. He also said that Allah, 
had he never ceased knowing things that are knowable, the 
latter would be eternal, because one cannot be a knower 
without an object already existing to be known, as if Hisham 
had impugned the possibility of knowing the non-existent. 
Hisham said, moreover, that if Allah was the knower of 50 
that which his servants did for him before their deeds 
actually occurred, the free will of his servants would not be 
possible, nor could they impose duties upon themselves. In 
regard to the Koran, he was wont to say that it was neither 
creator nor created. It could, nevertheless, not be said that 
it 'was not created, because such a statement would be an 
attribute and, according to him, an attribute cannot be 
predicated. As to the deeds of Allah's servants, the tradi- 
tions about them, according to him, are divergent. One 
tradition says they were created of Allah, another that they 
are ideas, and neither things nor bodies, for according to 
Hisham a thing can only be a body. Regarding the proph- 
ets, Hisham considered it lawful to say that they were dis- 
obedient, although the Imams he considered sinless. In 
connection with this he claimed that the prophet disobeyed 
his Lord in taking ransom from the prisoners of Badr, but 
Allah forgave him. Applied to this are the words of Allah : 
" May Allah forgive thee that which thou hast done early 
by thy fault and that in which thou didst delay." * Thus 
he distinguished between prophet and Imam, since to the 

1 Surah 48, v. 2. 



Prophet when he disobeyed there came a revelation calling 
attention to his sins, while to the Imam no such revelation 
came; he must therefore be free from disobedience. As 
regards the Imamate, Hisham belonged to the school of the 
Imamlyah, although the rest of the Imamlyah condemned 
him because he thought the Prophet capable of disobedience. 
Furthermore, he denied that any of the parts of a body 
were limited, and it was from him that al-Nazzam 1 took the 
doctrine that what could be no further divided was non- 
existent. Zurkan 2 says of him in his treatise that he held 
51 that it was possible for one body to pass into another, just 
as al-Nazzam held that two thin bodies could be in the same 
place [at the same time]. Zurkan reports further that he 
said : " Man consists of two things, a body and a soul. The 
body is dead, the soul, however, is sentient and intelligent, 
and acts on the outside world. It is a light like the bodies 
in the universe that give light." As regards earthquake, 
Hisham said : " The earth is made up of different elements 
each closely attached to the other. Thus when one of these 
elements becomes weak the other becomes stronger, and an 
earthquake takes place; if the element further increases in 
weakness, there is an eclipse.'' Zurkan also reported of 
him that he considered it possible for someone who was not 
a prophet to walk on water, although he did say that mir- 
acles could not be performed by one who was not a prophet. 
Concerning Hisham ibn-Salim al-Jawaliki: This Jawa- 
liki while belonging in his heresies to the school of the 
Imamlyah went to the extreme as regards the doctrine of 
corporeality and anthropomorphism. He claimed that the 
object which he worshipped was in the image of man, but 
was not flesh and blood, being a diffused white light. He 
claimed also that he possesses five senses, like the senses of 

1 Friedlander, ibid., vol. xxix, p. 58. 

2 According to punctuation in Dhahabi, al Mushtabih, p. 240. 



man, and has hands and feet and eyes and ears and nose 
and mouth, and he hears by a different means from that by 
which he sees, and the rest of the senses being different in 
the same way. He goes on to say that the upper half of 
this being is hollow and the lower is solid. 

Abu-'Isa al-Warrak * reports that he claims that his ob- 
ject of worship had black hair, it being a black light, but the 
rest of the person is white light. 

Our Sheikh abu'l-Hasan al-'Ash'ari reports in his treat- 
ise that Hisham ibn-Salim held the same views as Hisham 
ibn-al-Hakam as regards the will of Allah. They maintain 52 
that his will is an act, a mental image which is not Allah 
nor anyone besides him. Thus if Allah wishes anything, 
he moves, and that which he wishes is. In this abu-Malik 
al-Hadraml agrees, as well as 'All ibn-Maitham, who were 
of the sheikhs of the Randiyah, i. e., that the will of Allah 
is a separate act; but they hold further that the will of 
Allah is outside of him. 

It is also said of al-Jawaliki that he said that the acts of 
the servants of Allah are substances, for there is nothing in 
the world but substances. He thus granted that the servants 
of Allah could create substances. A similar view is re- 
ported of Shaitan al-Tak. 

h. Concerning the Zarariyah 2 from among them. 

These are the followers of 'AH Zararah ibn-A'yan, who 
belonged to the sect al-Kahdiyah, those who believed in the 
Imamate of 'Abdallah ibn-Ja'far. From this sect he went 
over to that of the Musawiyah. The heresy which is laid at 
his door is that Allah did not live, nor have power, nor hear, 
nor see, nor know, nor wish, until he created for himself life, 
and power, and knowledge, and will, and hearing, and see- 

1 Mentioned in Fihrist, p. 33%- 

2 Not included by Ibn-Hazm. 



ing. It was after he had created these attributes for him- 
self that he became living, powerful, wise, wishing, hearing, 
and seeing. The Basrah Kadariyah inferred frcm this form 
of heresy the finiteness of Allah's will and of Allah's word. 
It was from this principle that the Karamiyah inferred their 
doctrine that the word of Allah and his will and his apper- 
ceptions were finite. 

i. Concerning the Yunuslyah * from among them. 

They are the followers of Yunus ibn-'Abd-al-Rahman al- 
Kummi. 2 AJthough of the Imamiyah, he belonged to the 
53 school of the Katfiyah, who firmly maintained that Musa 
ibn-Ja'far had died. And it was he who gave to those who 
would not commit themselves to a decision on the death of 
Musa the name of Mamturah dogs. Yunus, however, ex- 
ceeded the limits of anthropomorphism. He claimed that 
Allah is borne by the bearers of his throne, though he is 
stronger than they; just as the legs of the throne bear the 
throne, although the throne is stronger than they. As a 
proof of the fact that Allah is borne, he quoted : " And on 
that day eight will bear the throne of your lord above 
them." 3 Whereas the people of our doctrine maintain that 
this verse proves that the throne is borne, and not the lord. 

j. Concerning the Shaitamyah from among them. 

These are the followers of Muhammad ibn-al-Nu'man al- 
Rafidi, called Shaitan al-Tak 4 up to his son Musa. This 
sect maintains that Musa died, and they look for a successor 

1 Not to be confused with the Yunuslyah of the Murji'ah. Not a sect 
in Ibn-Hazm, J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 50. 

2 Fihrist, p. 220. 

3 Surah 69, v. 17. 

4 Ibn-Hazm calls him the son of Ja'far, J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 59; 
ShahrastanI calls the sect Nu'manlyah (cf. Z. D. M. G., 61, 75, n. 2). 
Mentioned in Fihrist, p. 308, also as abu-Ja'far. 



for him and agree with Hisham ibn-Salim al-Jawaliki in the 
view that the deeds of the servants of Allah are substances; 
and that a servant of Allah can really produce a substance. 
They also agree with Hisham ibn-al-Hakam in the claim 
that Allah knows all things only after having determined 
them, and willed them, and that he does not know the things 
before determining them. 

'Abd al-Kahir says that we have mentioned the sects of 
the Rafidah among the Zaidiyah and the Kaisamyah and 
the Imamiyah. Today the Kaisamyah are undistinguish- 
able, having mingled with the Zaidiyah and the Imamiyah 
among the Zaidiyah. When quarrels arose among the 
Imamiyah, some causing the others to err, one of the Imam- 
iyah poets satirized the Zaidiyah as follows : 

" O ye useless Zaidiyah, your Imam is an unfortunate one, and cast off. -^ 

ye vultures of the air, 1 go to Hell, ye have dived down and brought 

up stones against us." 

A poet of the Zaidiyah answered him as follows : 

" Our Imam is set up and stands upright, not like the one who has to 
be sought by sifting. 
Any Imam who is not seen publicly, he is not worth unto us a 
mustard seed." 

'Abd al-Kahir says we have answered these two sects as 
regards their verses as follows : 

" O, ye worthless Rafidah, your claims are worthless throughout. 
Your Imam — if he is hidden in darkness, try to reach the hidden one 

by means of a light 
Or if he is covered up by your rancors, then bring forth by means 

of a sieve the one who is covered up. 
But the true Imam, according to us, is revealed by the Sunn<ih or 

Koran verse. 
And in them is a sufficiency for him who is rightly led. These two 

suffice us as a revelation." 

1 The bird is used for hurtful companions. Goldziher, Z. D. M. G., 
lxv, 353- 


The Sects of the Kharijiyah 

As we have mentioned before, the Khawarij form twenty 
sects, 1 and the following are their names : The First 
Muhakkimah, the Azarikah, the Najadat, the Sifriyah, 2 the 
'Ajaridah (who are themselves divided into sects, one of 
which is the Khazimiyah), the Shu'aibiyah, the Ma'lumiyah, 
55 the Majhuliyah, the Ashab Ta'ah (those who do pious 
deeds with no intention to please God), the Saltiyah, the 
Akhnasiyah, the Shaibiyah, the Shaibaniyah, the Mu'bad- 
iyah, the Rashidiyah, the Makrumiyah, the Khamriyah, the 
Shamrakhiyah, the Ibrahimiyah, the Wakifah, and the 
Ibadiyah. 8 The Ibadiyah are divided into various sects, the 
majority forming the two main sects of the Hafsiyah and 
the Hadithiyah. As regards the Yazidlyah 4 of the Ibadiyah 

1 According to ShahrastanI, the Khawarij are divided into six sects. 
Cf. Haarbriicker's translation, vol. i, p. 129. 

2 There seems to be some doubt about the pointing of this word. 
ShahrastanI does not point it at all. Haarbriicker transcribes it as 
Sifriyah. Friedlander (J. A. O. S., vol. xxix) gives it as Sufrlyah, 
while Muhammad Badr has in one place Sifriyah and in the other 
Sufrlyah. We are inclined to think the latter correct, since it occurs 

3 Wellhausen: Religids-politischen Oppositionsparteien itn Alten Islam, 
Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften Gottingen, vol. v, 
p. 28. 

* ShahrastanI includes the Yazidlyah among the orthodox sects. Cf. 
Haarbriicker's translation, vol. i, p. 153. 



and the Maimuniyah 1 of the 'Ajaridah, these were two 
sects of the unorthodox Ghulat who are not included in the 
sects of the Moslem people. They will be mentioned in a 
later chapter in connection with the sects of the Ghulat, 
please God. 

As to the main beliefs on which the Khawarij unite, in 
spite of the divisions of their various sects, scholars disagree. 
Al-Ka'bi says that in spite of their division into sects the 
Khawarij agreed on the following views, namely: in con- 
demning 'AH and 'Uthman, the two judges (Arabic al-haka- 
main), and all the Followers of the Camel, and all who 
accepted the decision of the two judges; in declaring as 
apostates those who commit major sins; and in the neces- 
sity of rebelling against an oppressive Imam. Our sheikh 
abu-1-Hasan, on the other hand, said that they agree in 
condemning 'All and 'Uthman, the Followers of the Camel, 
and the two judges, those who accepted their decision claim- 
ing the decision of one or both as right. He also claimed 
that they agreed over the necessity of rebelling against an 
oppressive ruler; but he does not hold al-Ka'bfs view that 
they agreed in condemning those who commit major sins. 
The correct view is that given concerning them by our 
sheikh abu-1-Hasan; for al-Ka'bi is wrong in his views that 
the Khawarij agreed in condemning those who committed 
major sins. The Najadat especially, among the Khawarij, 
do not declare as heretics those of their followers who have 
made themselves liable to punishments (Arabic, ashab al- 
hudiid):- Some of the Khawarij hold that a man can be 
declared unorthodox only when committing sins in regard 56 
to which there is no express threat (in the Koran) ; while 
as regards the sin for which there is either punishment 

1 Included among the orthodox sects by Shahrastani. 
3 Juynboll : Handbuch des Isldmischen Gesetzes, p. yx>. 



or threat given in the Koran, the person committing such 
a sin cannot be designated only by an appellation men- 
tioned in the Koran, such as adulterer, thief, and the like. 
The Najadat, on the contrary, hold that the one of their 
number who commits a major sin is excluded from Allah's 
grace, but is not necessarily a heretic in faith. This shows 
al-Ka'bfs error in saying that all of the Khawarij agree in 
declaring the authors of major sins heretics, whether they 
belong to the Kharijite body or another. The only correct 
view in regard to the beliefs held in common by all the 
Khawarij is that which our sheikh abu-1-Hasan claims, 
namely : the condemning of 'AH and 'Uthman, the Follow- 
ers of the Camel, the two judges, and all those who justified 
the decision of the two judges, or the decision of one of 
them, or accepted their arbitration. We will now take up 
all these divisions in detail, please God. 

i. Concerning the first Muhakkimah: The Khawarij 
were either Muhakkimah or Shurah. 1 Scholars differ in 
regard to the first person who became a Shurah. Some say 
it was 'Urwah ibn-Hudair, 2 the brother of Maradis al-Kha- 
riji; and others that the first to secede was Yazid ibn-'Asim 
al-Muhadhi ; 3 while others hold that a man of the Rabi'ah 
of the Banu Yashkur who was with 'All at Siffin, when he 
saw that the two parties had agreed upon the tzvo judges. 
mounted his horse and attacked the followers of Mu'awiyah, 
killing one of their men, following this with an attack on 
the followers of 'All, killing one of their men. He then 
cried at the top of his voice : " Verily have I given up alle- 
giance to 'All and Mu'awiyah, and am therefore not bound 

1 Mentioned in ShahrastanI, Haarbriicker, vol. i, p. 21, i. e. heretics. 
On the term, see Lane, S. V. and Z. D. M. G., Ixi, p. 432. 

2 Tabarl, Chronique ed. Zotenberg, vol. iii, p. 683. 

3 ShahrastanI, ibid., vol. i, p. 130, calls him Yazid ibn 'Asim al- 



by their decision." It was while fighting the followers of 
'All that he was killed by some men from Hamadhan. As 
for the Khawarij, who then numbered twelve thousand, 
after the return of 'All from Siffin to al-Kfifah, they broke 57 
up camp and went to Hartira. This is why the Khawarij 
are called Haruriyah. Their leaders at the time were 'Ab- 
dallah ibn-Kauwa and Shibt ibn-Rab'i. 'AH came against 
them and plead with them, and his arguments prevailed so 
that ibn-al-Kauwa put himself under 'All's protection with 
ten horsemen while the rest of them went to al-Nahrawan, 
and made two men commanders over them : 'Abdallah ibn- 
Wahab al-Rasibi, 1 and Hurkus ibn-Zuhair al-Bajali al- 
'Urani known as dhu-1-Thudaiah. 2 On their way through 
Nahrawan they discovered a man who was fleeing from 
them and having surrounded him, they said, " Who art 
thou?" He answered, " I am 'Abdallah ibn-Hubab ibn-al- 
'Aratt." 3 " Tell us," said they, " a tradition which thou 
didst hear from thy father and which he heard from the 
prophet of Allah." He said, " I have heard my father say 
that the prophet of Allah said, ' There will be a civil war 
during which he who sits will be better than he who stands, 
and he who stands than he who walks, and he who walks 
better than he who runs, and whoever is able to be killed, 
let him not be a slayer.' " Then a man of the Khawarij, 
called Masma' ibn-Kadali, fell upon him with his sword 
and killed him, and his blood flowed in a streak over the 
water of the river to the other side. They then entered his 
house which was in the village, before the gate of which 

1 Wellhausen, ibid., p. 17 ct seq. Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 130. 

2 Ibid., p. 130. For further account see Tabarl-Zotenberg, vol. iii, 
p. 683. 

3 Wellhausen: Das Arabischc Reich und sein Sturs, p. 54- Briinnow : 
Die Charidschiten, p. 20. 



they had killed him, and put his child to death, as well as 
his slave (concubine), the mother of his child. They then 
encamped in Nahrawan. When news of them reached 'All 
he started against them with forty thousand of his follow- 
58 ers, accompanied by 'Adi ibn-Hatim al-Ta'I, 1 who said: 

" When people fall back and slink away, we come with banners of truth 

fluttering like eagles, 
Against the worst of Schismatics, who have gathered together to make 

war on the God of men, the Lord of the East, 
Against the erring and the blind and the forsakers of true guidance, 

all of whom reject his word, and are unrighteous. 
And among us is 'All, of excellent virtue, who leads us against them 

openly with shining swords." 

On arriving, 'All sent word to them saying, " Hand over 
the slayer of 'Abdallah ibn-Hubbab." The answer came 
back, " Lo, all of us killed him, and verily if we had won 
the victory over thee, we should have killed thee." Where- 
upon 'AH attacked them with his army, and they appeared 
before him en masse. But before fighting he said to them, 
"What makes you seek revenge from me?" They an- 
swered, " We seek revenge from thee, first of all, because 
we fought for thee in the Battle of the Camel, and when the 
Followers of the Camel were put to flight thou didst permit 
us [to keep] what we had won [in the way] of booty from 
their soldiers, but thou didst forbid our taking possession 
of their women and their children. Why didst thou permit 
us their goods and exclude their women and children ?" 'AH 
answered : " I allowed their possessions to be seized only in 
exchange for what they had robbed from the treasury in 
al-Basrah before I came to them. But as to the women and 
the children, they were not fighting us. And therefore the 
regulations of Islam, made within the territory of Islam, 2 

lr raban, ibid., vol. iii, p. 171 et seq., 245, 326, 342, 653 et seq., 658, 675. 
2 Dar al-Islam. 



should be applied to them. None of them had apostatized 
from Islam, and it is not permitted to make slaves of those 
who are not unbelievers. Moreover, if I had allowed you 
to take the women, which one of you would have taken 
'A'ishah as his share?" The people being shamefully 
silenced by this, said to him, " Secondly, we seek revenge 
from thee for not using the Commander of the Faithful in 
connection with thy name, in the correspondence between 
thee and Mu'awiyah, when the latter disputed with thee in 59 
regard to such power." He answered, " I followed the ex- 
ample of the prophet of Allah on the day of al-Hudaibiyah, 
when Suhail ibn-'Amr said to him, ' Had I known that thou 
art the prophet of Allah, I would not have disputed with 
thee, but write down thy name and the name of thy 
father !' l Accordingly the Prophet wrote, ' It is this upon 
which we, Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah and Suhail ibn-'Amr, 
have agreed.' The prophet of Allah told me that the same 
would happen to me, in connection with them; so my ex- 
perience with the sons is the same as that of the prophet of 
Allah with the fathers." They then went on to say to 'All, 
" Why didst thou say to the two judges, ' If I am worthy 
of the caliphate, then confirm me in it?' for if thou showest 
doubt concerning thy caliphate, then others (than thou) 
will have even more right to be in doubt concerning thee." 
To this 'Ali replied : " On that occasion I desired only jus- 
tice to Mu'awiyah, for if I had said to the too judges, 
'Choose me for caliph,' Mu'awiyah would not have been 
satisfied. Verily the prophet of Allah challenged the Chris- 
tians of Najran to invoke the curse of God on the lying 
faction, saying, " Come, let us summon our sons and your 
sons, our wives and your wives, and ourselves and your- 
selves. Then we will invoke and lay the malison of Allah 

1 Tabarl, ibid., vol. iii, p. 89. 



on those who lie.' (Surah 3, v. 54.) In doing this he 
showed justice to them even at his own expense, for if he 
had said, ' I curse and ask the curse of Allah upon you,' the 
Christians would not have been satisfied. It is for this 
reason that I, in turn, was just with Mu'awiyah. Nor do I 
understand the treachery of 'Amr ibn-al-'Asi." They then 
said, " Why didst thou entrust the arbitration to the two 
judges when the right was on thy side?" And he said, " I 
found that the Prophet of Allah had once entrusted to Sa'd 
ibn-Mu'adh the arbitration of the case of the banu- 
Kuraizah, 1 although had he wished he need not have done 
it. In like manner I chose a judge, but the judge of the 
60 Prophet judged justly, whereas my judge was cheated — 
which led to evil results. Have you any complaints beside 
this?" The people were silent. Most of them said, "By 
Allah, he speaketh the truth." And they said, " We re- 
pent." So on that day eight thousand put themselves under 
his control while four thousand withdrew to take part in 
the fight against him headed by 'Abdallah ibn-Wahb al- 
Rasibi and Hurkus ibn-Zuhair al-Bajali. Then 'AH said to 
those who had put themselves under his control, " With- 
draw from me for this one day." And he fought the 
Khawarij with those who had come with him from al- 
Kufah. He commanded his followers to fight them, say- 
ing, " By him in whose hand is my soul not ten of us will 
be killed, and not ten of them will escape." As a matter of 
fact, nine of the followers of 'AH were killed on that day. 
These were Duwaibiyah ibn-Wabrah al-Bajali, Sa'd ibn- 
Mujalid al-Saiba'I, 'Abdallah ibn-Hammad al-Juhairi, 
Rukanah ibn-Wa'il al-Arji, al-Faiyad ibn-Khalll al-Azdi, 
Kaisum ibn-Salamah al-Juhani, 'Utbah ibn-'Ubaid al- 
Khaulani, Jami' ibn-Jusham al-Kindi, and Habib ibn- 

1 Ibn-Hisham, p. 674. Tabarl, ibid., vol. iii, p. 70. 



'Aslni al-'Audi. These nine were killed under the flag of 
'All — and no more. In the course of the conflict, Hurkus 
ibn-Zuhair presented himself before 'All and said, "Oson of 
abu-Talib, by Allah, we do not wish to fight with thee except 
for the sake of Allah and the other world." And 'All said 
to him, " Verily to you applies the word of Allah, ' Shall 
we tell you who they are that have lost their labor most; 
whose aim in the present life hath been mistaken, and who 
deem that what they do is right?' (Surah 18, v. 103-104.) 
By the Lord of the Ka'hah, you are among those referred 
to in the text." 'All then attacked them with his followers, 
and 'Abdallah ibn-Wahb was killed in a duel, and Dhu-1- 61 
Thudyah was thrown from his horse. Most of the 
Khawarij were killed that day, only nine of them escaping. 
Two of these went to Sijistan where the present Khawarij 
are their followers. And two went to al-Yaman. The 
Ibadiyah of al-Yaman are their followers. Two went to 
'Uman and founded the sect of Khawarij there. Two went 
to the region of al-Jazirah (Mesopotamia), and the Kha- 
warij of al-Jazirah are their followers. And one went to 
Tell Mauzan. 1 On that day 'All said to his followers, 
" Seek Dhu-1-Thudyah." They found him under a vine- 
tree, and they saw under his arm, near the armpit, some- 
thing like the breast of a woman. Whereupon 'AH said, 
"The word of Allah and his Prophet have come true;" 
and in accordance with 'All's desire he was put to death. 
This is the story of the First Muhakkimah. Then the First 
Muhakkimah declared as unorthodox 'AH and 'Uthman, the 
Followers of the Camel, Mu'awiyah and his followers, the 
two judges, and whoever agrees with their decision ; as well 
as all sinful and disobedient men. 

Shortly after this, there rebelled against 'AH certain 

1 De Goeje, La fin de V empire des Carmathes du Bahrein, Journ. As. 
1895, ser. ix, vol. v, pp. n, 171. 



Khawarij who were of the same view as the First Muhak- 
kimah. Among them was 'Ashras ibn-'Auf, who arose 
against him in al-Anbar, Ghalafah al-Taimi, of Taim 'Adi, 
arose against him in Masidhan ; 1 al-Ashhab ibn-Bishr al- 
'Uranl, in Harjaraya; 2 Sa'd ibn-Kufl in al-Mada'in, 3 and 
abu-Maryam al-Sa'di in Sawad al-Kufah. 'All sent an 
army with a leader against each one of these Khawarij 
until all were killed. It was in that same year, in the month 
of Ramadan, in the thirty-eighth year of the Hijra, that 
'All was killed. 

When the rule passed over to Mu'awiyah, there rebelled 
62 against him and his followers down to the time of the 
Azarikah, all who held the same views as the First Muhak- 
kimah. Among these was 'Abdallah ibn-Jausha al-Ta'I, 
who arose against Mu'awiyah in al-Nukhailah, in Sawad 
al-Kufah. Mu'awiyah sent men from al-Kufah against 
him, and killed these Khawarij. Next there arose against 
him [Mu'awiyah] Hautharah ibn-Wada' al-'Asadi. He 
was among those who sought the protection of 'AH at the 
battle of al-Nahrawan, in the forty-first year. Then Far- 
wah ibn-Naufal al-Ashja'I, 4 and al-Mustaurid ibn-'Alkamah 
al-Tamimi rose against al-Mughirah ibn-Shu'bah, 5 who 
was then the governor of al-Kufah under Mu'awiyah. Both 
of these were killed in fighting him. Mu'adh ibn-Jarir next 
rose against al-Mughirah and was killed in the battle. Then 
Ziyad ibn-Kharrash al-'Ijli arose against Ziyad ibn-Abihi, 

1 De Goeje gives Masabadhan, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 
vol. vi, p. 20; vol. vii, p. 25. See also Yakut, vol. iii, p. 393- As the 
former is a well-known place, we conclude that in the text it should 
be Masabadhan. 

2 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 7; one of the provinces of the territory watered by 
the Euphrates and Dujail, west of the Tigris. 

3 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 5. 

*TabarI, ibid., vol. iii, p. 600; vol. iv, p. 6. 
5 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 6. 



and was killed during the fight. Kuraib ibn-Murrah with 
Zahaf ibn-Rahar al-Ta'i arose against 'Ubaid-Allah ibn- 
Ziyad. These two put to the sword everyone they met on 
their way, without distinction. Ibn-Ziyad sent 'Ubad ibn- 
al-Husain al-Haiti against them with an army which de- 
feated them. These are the Khawarij who stood by the 
First Muhakkimah before the time of the strife of the 
Azarikah, and Allah knows best. 

2. Concerning the Azarikak. 1 These are the followers 
of Nan' ibn-al-Azrak al-Hanafi, surnamed abu-Rashid. 2 
The Khawarij never had a sect which surpassed this in 
number, nor one that exceeded it in power. In creed they 
agreed on many points, among which were the following: 
the assertion that the opponents of this sect, within the 
Moslem community, were polytheists. The First Muhak- 
kimah had said that such opponents were unbelievers, but 63 
not polytheists. Secondly, this sect asserted that those fol- 
lowers who abstained from fighting with them, although 
agreeing in other respects, were polytheists. The First 
Muhakkimah did not condemn such abstainers, if they 
agreed with them in other respects. The third point on 
which this sect agreed was that when a soldier appears, 
claiming that he is one of the sect, the truth of his claim 
should be proved by bringing to him a captive from the 
opposing side whom he be commanded to kill. If he kills 
this captive, his claim that he is one of the sect is con- 
firmed; if he refuses to kill the captive, he should be con- 
sidered a hypocrite and a heretic, and should be put to 
death. Fourthly, this sect permits the killing of their 
opponents' wives, as well as the killing of their children. 

1 Dinawari, al-Akhbdr al-Tiwdl, p. 278. Tabari— De Goeje, vol. ii, 
p. 581. 

3 Shahrastanl, ibid., vol. i, p. 133 ** se Q- Tabari— Zotenberg, vol. iv, 
p. 76. 



Moreover, they claim that the children of those who 
oppose them are polytheists and will therefore be in hell- 
fire forever. What they differ about is the question as 
to who was the first to put forward the doctrine which is 
peculiar to the Azarikah, namely, the declaring the Abstain- 
ers from war, as unorthodox. They also disagree as re- 
gards the originator of the trial of a soldier claiming to be 
of their army. Some of them claim that the first to orig- 
inate these views was 'Abd-Rabbihi al-Kabir [the elder], 1 
while others say it was 'Abd-Rabbihi al-Saghir [the 
younger], and still others that the first was one of their 
men called 'Abdallah ibn-al-Wadm. Nafi' ibn-al-Azrak 
differed from ibn-al-Wadm and asked him to change his 
heretical view, but when ibn-al-Wadm died, Nafi' and his 
followers adopted his view, saying, " He was in the right." 
Nafi* did not consider that he had been unorthodox when he 
differed from ibn-al-Wadm, but he declared that person 
unorthodox who disagreed after he himself had seen the 
light. Nor did he separate himself from the First Muhak- 
kimah in their refusing to condemn the Abstainers as un- 
orthodox. He said, " In regard to this point, we are in- 
ferior to them [the Muhakkimah]." He therefore con- 
demned as unorthodox those who, after this, opposed him 
in the matter of condemning the Abstainers as unorthodox. 
Nafi' and his followers claimed that the home of their 
opponents, within the Moslem community, was the home 
64 of unbelief; and that it is permissible in this home to kill 
children and women. The Azarikah, however, rejected the 
stoning of the adulterer, while considering it permissible to 
deny a trust, the paying of which had been commanded by 
Allah; the explanation they gave being, " If our opponents 
are polytheists, then we do not need to give back a deposit 

1 Author of al-Ikd dl-Farid. 



made by them." Nor do they apply the legal punishment 
to him who brings a false charge of adultery against a pious 
man, although they do in the case of a man who accuses 
pious women. They also cut off the hand of a thief, 
whether the amount stolen be big or little, thus ignoring the 
law in regard to the minimum amount of the stolen goods. 1 
The community has condemned them for this innovation, 
which they introduced in connection with an unbelief in 
which the First Muhakkimah shared. In this way one 
heresy led to another, just as anger incites anger. Unbe- 
lievers are doomed to great torture. 

After the Azarikah had agreed on the innovations which 
we have mentioned they paid allegiance to NarY ibn-al- 
Azrak, who was called the Commander of the Faithful. 
They were joined by the Khawarij of 'Uman and al-Yaman, 
their number amounting to more than twenty thousand. 
They took possession of al-Ahwaz 2 and what is beyond it 
of the land of Persia and Kirman, collecting its land-tax. 
The governor of al-Basrah at that time was 'Abdallah ibn- 
al-Harith al-Khuza'i 3 under 'Abdallah ibn-al-Zubair. 'Ab- 
dallah ibn-al-Harith despatched an army with Muslim ibn- 
'Abs ibn-Kuraiz ibn-Habib ibn-'Abd- Shams to fight the 
Azarikah. The two parties met in Dulab al-Ahwaz. In 
this battle Muslim ibn-'Abs was killed, together with most 
of his followers. After this there came against them from 
al-Basrah 'Uthman ibn-'Ubaidallah ibn-Ma'mar al-Tamimi 
with two thousand horsemen, whom the Azarikah put to 
flight. Then there came against them Harithah ibn-Badr 
al-Fadani at the head of three thousand from the army of 

1 According to law, the seizing of anything under this minimum 
amount is not considered a theft; therefore it is not punishable. 

2 Meynard, Dictionnaire de la Perse, p. 57- Northwestern province 
of Persia. 

8 For an account of this governor and the successive battles, cf. 
Tabari, ibid., vol. iv, p. 76 et seq. Briinnow, ibid., p. 42 ^ seq., 52 et seq. 



5 c al-Basrah, but the Azarikah put them also to flight. 'Ab- 
dallah ibn-al-Zubair then wrote from Mecca to al-Muhal- 
lab ibn-abi-Suf rah, who was at that time in Khurasan, com- 
manding him to fight the Azarikah, and making him com- 
mander of this affair. So al-Muhallab returned to al- 
Basrah and chose from its army ten thousand men, and his 
people of the tribe of al-Azd joined him, making a total of 
twenty thousand men. This army proceeded to fight the 
Azarikah and drove them from Dulab al-Ahwaz to al- 
Ahwaz. It was in this flight that Nan' ibn-al-Azrak died. 

After his death the Azarikah paid allegiance to 'Ubai- 
dallah ibn-Ma'mun al-Tamimi. Al-Muhallab then fought 
them in al-Ahwaz, on which occasion 'Ubaidallah ibn- 
Ma'mun was killed, as well as his brother 'Uthman ibn- 
Ma'mun, together with three hundred of the strongest of 
the Azarikah. Those who remained were driven to 'Idhaj, 1 
where they paid allegiance to Katari ibn-al-Fuja'ah, to 
whom they gave the title of the Commander of the Faithful. 
After this, al-Muhallab fought them in battles in which each 
party won alternate victories, at the end of which the 
Azarikah were driven to Sabur, 2 in the land of Persia, which 
they made the land of their flight. Al-Muhallab, his sons 
and his followers, kept up the fight for nineteen years. Part 
of this period was in the days of 'Abdallah ibn-al-Zubair, 
and the rest in the time of the caliph 'Abd-al-Malik ibn- 
Marwan, during the governorship of al-Hajjaj over al- 
Trak. 3 The latter confirmed al-Muhallab in his position as 
leader of the army against the Azarikah. This war between 

1 'Idhaj is a town in al-Ahwaz. See De Goeje, Bibliotheca Geogra- 
phorum Arabicorum, index, s. v.; Yakut, Geographisches Worterbuch, 
vol. i, p. 4 J 6 s. v. 

2 Meynard, ibid., p. 293. One of the principal districts of Fars, not 
far from Shiraz. 

s Tabari, ibid., vol. iv, p. 117 et seq. 



al-Muhallab and the Azarikah kept on raging for years in 
different forms between Persia and al-Ahwaz, until a differ- 
ence arose among the Azarikah which resulted in 'Abd- 
Rabbihi the elder forsaking the Katari and going to a valley 
in Jiraft Kirmin * with seven thousand men. 'Abd-Rabbihi 66 
the younger left him and with four thousand men went to 
another district of Kirman, Katari remaining with about 
ten thousand men in the land of Persia. There al-Muhallab 
fought with him, and drove him to the land of Kirman, 
where he pursued and fought him, driving him from there 
to al-Rai. 2 He then attacked and killed 'Abd-Rabbihi the 
elder, while he sent his son Yazld ibn-al-Muhallab with his 
followers against 'Abd-Rabbihi the younger. At the same 
time al-Hajjaj sent Sufyan ibn-al-Abrad al-Kalbi with a 
great army against Katari after he had departed from al- 
Rai to Tabaristan, where they killed him and sent his head 
to al-Hajjaj. 'Ubaidah ibn-Hilal al-Yashkuri had forsaken 
Katari and gone to Kumis. So Sufyan ibn-al-Abrad fol- 
lowed and besieged him in the fortress of Kumis until he 
succeeded in killing him and his followers. Allah thus 
cleared the earth of the Azarikah — praise Allah for that! 

3. Concerning the Najadat. These were the followers 
of Najdah ibn-'Amir al-Hanafi. 3 The cause of his leader- 
ship and authority was that when Nan' ibn-al-Azrak de- 
clared unorthodox those who abstained from fighting, 
though they agreed with him in belief, he called them poly- 
theists, and sanctioned the killing of the children of his 
opponents and their women. Abu-Kudail, 4 'Ativan al- 

1 Meynard, ibid., p. 185, town in Kirman. 

2 De Goeje, ibid., vol. vi, pp. 20 and 22, town in Persia. 

3 For Najdah and the other leaders of this sect see ShahrastanI, 
ibid., vol. i, p. 136. Briinnow, ibid., p. 46 et seq. Tabarl, ibid., vol. 
iv, p. 102. 

* Probably a mistake for abu-Fudaik, he being the other great 
schismatic in this sect. ShahrastanI, vol. i, p. 136. 



Hanafi, Rashid al-Tawil, Miklas and 'Aiyub al-Azrak for- 
sook Naf? with all their followers, departing for al-Yama- 
mah, where Najdah received them with an army of those 
Khawarij who desired to follow the army of Nafi'. They 
told them of NafV's latest theories and sent them back to 
6y al-Yamamah, where they swore allegiance to Najdah ibn- 
'Amir. These men condemned as unbelievers those who 
had in turn condemned the Abstainers as unbelievers. They 
also condemned whoever admitted the Imamate of Nafi', 
making Najdah the Imam. About him, however, they soon 
differed,, complaining of various things. These disagree- 
ments led to their division into three sects. One of these 
sects went with 'Ativan ibn-al-Aswad al-Hanaf I to Sijistan, 1 
where the Khawarij of Sijistan joined them; and it is be- 
cause of this that the Khawarij of Sijistan are called 'Ata- 
wiyah. The second sect joined abu-Kudail [Fudaik] in 
battle against Najdah. They are the ones who killed Naj- 
dah. The third sect broke with Najdah in regard to his 
theories but accepted his Imamate. Among the deeds of 
Najdah for which his followers blamed him was the fact 
that he sent an army to attack by mainland and one to attack 
by sea, and to the one which he sent by land he assigned 
higher stipends than to the one which he sent by sea. They 
complained, moreover, that he had sent an army to attack 
the city of the Prophet of Allah and had seized there a 
daughter of 'Uthman ibn-'Affan. 'Abd-al-Malik having 
written to him about her, he had bought her back from the 
one in whose possession she was, and had given her back to 
'Abd-al-Malik ibn-Marwan. They therefore said to him, 
:i Verily thou hast returned to our enemies a maiden who 
belongs to us." They further complained because he par- 
doned those who committed faults in misdirected zeal, ex- 

1 De Goeje: ibid., vol. vi, p. 35. 



cusing them on the ground of ignorance. The explanation 
of this was that his son al-Muttarih was sent with an 
army to al-Katif, 1 which they attacked, taking the women 
and children prisoners. They then took possession of the 
women for themselves, and married them before the fifth 
of the booty had been taken out for the state. Concerning 
this they said : " The women fell to our share, which is our 
desire. If their price surpasses our share of the booty, we 
will make up for it from our own property." When they 
returned to Najdah, they asked him about what they had 
done in seizing the women, and in eating food from the 
booty before the fifth had been taken out, and before the 
four-fifths had been divided among the soldiers. Najdah 
said to them, " You should not have done this." They an- 
swered, " We did not know that this was not permitted us." 
Whereupon he forgave them because of their ignorance. 
Then he said, " There are two things in religion. One is 
the recognition of Allah, and the recognition of his proph- 
ets, the interdiction of the shedding of the blood of a Mos- 
lem, the interdiction of robbing the wealth of a Moslem, 
and the recognition of all that comes from Allah. This 
recognition is incumbent on everyone who has attained the 
age of puberty. And the second includes all other require- 
ments of religion. Man is forgiven for ignorance in regard 
to the latter, until there dawns upon him the distinction 
between that which is permissible and that which is for- 
bidden. Now, whoever in his (misdirected) zeal considers 
a thing which is forbidden permissible, he shall be forgiven. 
And he who, before the evidence is established, assumes 
punishment for the zealot who commits a fault, is an unbe- 
liever." Another innovation of Najdah was that he took 
under his protection those of his followers who held to the 
punishments fixed by law, and he said, " Perhaps Allah will 

1 De Goeje, ibid., vol. vi, p. 152, town in Bahrain. 



punish them for their sins in some place other than hell-fire, 
and then have them enter paradise." Moreover, he claimed 
that anyone disagreeing with his religious views would 
enter hell-fire. 

Another of his errors was that he annulled the punish- 
ment [hadd] for drinking wine. He also said, " Whoever 
commits a minor sin or tells a small lie, and persists in it, 
he is a polytheist; while he who commits adultery and 
steals, and takes a drink without making a habit of it, he is 
a Moslem," provided such a man agreed with him [Najdah] 
in the principles of his faith. When he had originated these 
innovations, and had forgiven his followers because they 
had acted in ignorance, most of his followers asked him to 
renounce his innovations, saying, " Go into the mosque and 
69 repent of your innovations." This he did, and it resulted 
in having some regret his repentance, and join those who 
had sided with him and said to him, " Thou art the Imam, 
and to thee belongs the right to explain the law, and it would 
not be seemly for us to ask thee to renounce anything. 
Therefore repent for having repented and let them recant 
who made thee recant; if not we will desert thee." And 
he did so. His followers, therefore, were divided concern- 
ing him, the majority deposing him and saying, " Choose 
us an Imam." So he chose abu-Fudaik; Rashid al-Tawil 
was hand in glove with abu-Fudaik. And when abu-Fudaik 
became governor of al-Yamamah, he learned that the fol- 
lowers of Najdah, on returning from fighting the infidels, 
would reinstate Najdah as head. Naj dan's slave, however, 
sought to kill him, so he hid himself in the dwelling of one 
of his followers, looking for the return of his soldiers whom 
he had sent to the seacoast of Syria and the districts of al- 
Yaman. Meanwhile a proclamation was given by abu- 
Fudaik: " Whoever shows us the way to Najdah, he shall 
be rewarded with ten thousand dirhems. And the slave 



who brings us to him, he shall be free." Thereupon a maid 
of those with whom Najdah was hiding pointed out the way 
to him, and abu-Fudaik sent Rashid al-Tawil to him with 
an army. They surprised him, and brought his head to 
abu-Fudaik. After Najdah was killed, the Najadat were 
divided into three sects. One sect condemned him and 
went over to abu-Fudaik. This sect included Rashid al- 
Tawil, abu-Baihas, and abu-1-Shamrakh, and their follow- 
ers. Another sect pardoned him for what he had done, 
these being the present Najadat; while the third sect de- 
parted from al-Yamamah, and settled near al-Basrah, where 70 
they doubted the story of the innovations of Najdah, and 
were undecided concerning him, saying, " We do not know 
whether he made these innovations or not, and we will not 
desert him without sure knowledge." Abii-Fudaik lived 
after the death of Najdah until 'Abd-al-Malik ibn-Marwan 
sent Ya'mur ibn-'Ubaidallah ibn-Ma mar al-Taimi against 
him with an army. They killed abu-Fudaik and sent his 
head to 'Abd-al-Malik ibn-Marwan. This ends the story of 
the Najadat. 

4. Concerning the Sufriyah. These are the followers of 
Ziyad ibn-al-Asfar. 1 Their views are in the main like those 
of the Azarikah, namely, that those who commit sins are 
polytheists; except that the Sufriyah do not sanction the 
killing of the women and the children of those who differ 
in belief from them, while the Azarikah do sanction it. One 
division of the Sufriyah claims that when a deed for which 
there is definite punishment is committed, the author of that 
deed should be called only by the name connected with the 
nature of the deed, e. g. adulterer, thief, calumniator or in- 
tentional murderer. He is not an unbeliever or a poly- 
theist. In all sins, however, for which there is no definite 

1 Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 154. 



punishment, such as the omitting of the prayer or of the 
fast, such deeds being heretical, their authors are unbe- 

( Manuscript is not clear at this point. ) 

The third sect of the Sufriyah asserted the same thing as 
the Baihasiyah, *. e. that the sinner should not be judged as 
an unbeliever until he has been brought before the governor 
and punished. 

Thus the Sufriyah were divided into three sects. One sect 
which claimed, as did the Azarikah, that the authors of any 
sin were all polytheists. The second claimed that the title 
of unbeliever should be given to the author of deeds which 
deserved no definite punishment, punishable sins being a 
j i departing from belief, but not an entrance into unbelief. 
The third claimed that the title of unbeliever should be 
given to the authors of all sins which were punished by the 
governor. These three sects of the Sufriyah differ from 
the Azarikah as regards children and women, as has been 
explained above. 

All the Sufriyah consider themselves to be under the 
patronage of 'Abdallah ibn-Wahb al-Rasibi, and Hurkus 
ibn-Zuhair and their followers from among the First Mu- 
hakkimah. They claim, moreover, that after the death of 
the men already mentioned, they are under the Imamate of 
abu-Bilal Mirdas al-Khariji, and after him of Tmran ibn- 
Hittan al-Sadwisi. As to abu-Bilal Mirdas, 1 in the days of 
Yazid ibn-Mu'awiyah, he rose in al-Basrah against 'Ubai- 
dallah ibn-Ziyad. 'Ubaidallah ibn-Ziyad sent against him 
Zur'ah ibn-Muslim al-'Amiri, with two thousand cavalry. 
As it happened, Zur'ah sympathized with the views of the 
Khawarij, and when both sides stood in battle array, Zur'ah 
said to abu-Bilal, " You are on the side of truth, but we 

^abarl-De Goeje, vol. ii, pp. 186, 390. Briinnow, ibid., p. 35. 



fear ibn-Ziyad lest he cancel our stipends, so there is noth- 
ing for us but to fight you." Abu-Bilal answered, "I should 
have liked to adopt toward you the view of my brother 
'Urwah who advised me to slay you indiscriminately, as 
Kuraib and Zahaf * slew indiscriminately certain men with 
the sword, but I disagree with both them and my brother." 
Thereupon abu-Bilal and his followers attacked and de- 
feated Zur'ah and his army. Then 'Ubaidallah ibn-Ziyad 
sent against him Tbad ibn-Akhdar al-Tamiml, who fought 
abu-Bilal in Tauwaj 2 and killed him, together with his fol- 
lowers. When the news of the death of abu-Bilal reached 
ibn-Ziyad, he killed those of the Sufriyah whom he found 
in al-Basrah, and having seized 'Urwah, the brother of 72 
Mirdas, he said to him, " O enemy of Allah, thou didst ad- 
vise thy brother Mirdas to slay men indiscriminately. Allah 
has avenged these men on thee and thy brother." By his 
orders 'Urwah' s hands and feet were cut off, and he was 
crucified. When Mirdas was killed, the Sufriyah made 
Tmran ibn-Hittan, Imam. He is the man who wrote elegies 
in verse on Mirdas, in one of which he said : 3 

" After thee, I know not what I thought I knew before, 
After thee, O Mirdas, men are no longer men." 

This Imran ibn-Hittan was a hermit poet, believing strongly 
in the school of the Sufriyah. An instance, however, of his 
ignominy in an attack on 'All is that he wrote an elegy on 
'Abd-al-Rahman ibn-Muljim 4 who stabbed 'AH, and said : 

l Tabari, ibid., vol. i, pp. 90, 91. 

2 De Goeje, ibid., vol. vi, p. 242, town in Persia. 

3 Noeldeke, Delectus veterum carminum Arabiconim, p. 90. Tabarl, 
Annates, vol. i, p. 3064. Shahrastani, vol. i, p. 134- Abu-1-Mahasin ; 
Annates, p. 24. Kitdb al-Aghdnl, vol. xvi, p. 152 et seq., this poem not 

4 Tabari-Zotenberg, vol. iii, p. 706, 'All's murderer. Kitdb al-Aghdni 
(reads Karim instead of Munib. Karim means nobleman), vol. xvi, 
p. 153. 



" O blow from a penitent, who, in giving it, only desired to bring down 
favor from the possessor of the Throne, 
I will mention him now, and I will consider him the richest of crea- 
tures before Allah, when it comes to the final weighing of 

'Abd-al-Kahir says he answered that poem with the follow- 
ing verse : 

" O blow from an unbeliever who did not profit by it, except by the fact 
that it makes him burn in hell fire. 
Verily I curse him for his religion and I curse also anyone who hopes 

for him at any time, forgiveness and pardon. 
This ibn-Muljim is the worst of men, he is the lightest in the scales 
of the Lord of men." 

5. Concerning the 'Ajaridah of the Khawarij. All of 
them are the followers of 'Abd-al-Karim ibn-'Ajrad, 1 who 

73 was a follower of 'Ativan ibn-al-Aswad al-Hanafi. The 
'Ajaridah were divided into ten sects which agreed on the 
view that a child is to be called to Islam when it has attained 
maturity, having been left in freedom before this until it is 
called to Islam, or speaks of it itself. Another matter in 
which they differed from the Azarikah is that the latter 
considered it permissible to seize the possessions of their op- 
ponents under all conditions. The 'Ajaridah, on the other 
hand, do not consider it lawful to seize the possessions of the 
opponent as booty until after killing the owner. All the 
'Ajaridah agreed on this at first, but later sects divided off 
from them, of whom we will speak below. 

6. Concerning the Khazimiyah. 2 These include most of 
the 'Ajaridah of Sijistan. This sect agrees with the Sun- 
nites as regards predestination, freedom of choice and will. 
In other words, they hold that there is no creator but Allah, 

1 Shahrastanl, ibid., vol. i, p. 143. 

2 Ibid. Charimlyah — cf. footnote, vol. i, p. 146. 



and nothing is done unless Allah desires it. Moreover, they 
hold that freedom of choice comes with the deed. As a re- 
sult, they condemn as unbelievers the Maimumyah who, in 
regard to predestination and freedom of choice, agree with 
the view of the Kadariyah, who have strayed from the 
truth. Furthermore, the Khazimiyah differed from the rest 
of the Khawarij over the question of friendship and 
hatred. They said, " Verily both of these are predicates of 
Allah." They hold that Allah loves a man for whatever 
faith he exhibits, even if he has been an unbeliever for 
most of his life. But, on the other hand, if a man be- 
comes an unbeliever at the end of his life, Allah keeps aloof 
from him, even though he has been a believer all the rest of 
his life. They also claim that Allah does not cease loving 
his friends or hating his enemies; agreeing with the Sun- 
nites concerning the perfection of man, except that these 
differed from the Khazimiyah in this, holding that 'Ali, 
Talhah, al-Zubair and 'Uthman were in Paradise, because 
they were of those who took the Oath of Allegiance, about 74 
whom Allah said, "Allah has had mercy upon the faithful, 
lo they made an oath of allegiance to thee under the tree." 
(Surah 48, v. 18.) And they said unto them, " since the 
mercy of Allah is visited upon one who God knows will die 
in faith, it must follow that those who took the oath under 
the tree should be among those to whom mercy is shown. 
'AH and Talhah and al-Zubair were among them, but 'Uth- 
man was a prisoner on that day, and the prophet promised 
allegiance to them, putting his own hand in the place of 
'Uthman's. By this means is proven the falsity of those 
who consider these four to be unbelievers." 

7. Concerning the Shu'aibiyah. In their views about pre- 
destination, freedom of choice, and will they agree with the 
view of the Khazimiyah. Any possible account of the 



Shu'aibiyah appears first when their leader, Shu'aib, 1 dif- 
fered with a man of the Khawarij whose name was Mai- 
mun. Their cause of difference was that Shu'aib owed 
Maimun money, over which they had a law suit, and Shu'aib 
said to him, " I will pay thee, if Allah desires." Maimun 
answered, " Allah has already desired it this minute." So 
Shu'aib replied, " If he has really desired it, I can have 
done nothing but paid it." And Maimun said, " Allah has 
commanded thee to do this, and he commands only what 
he desires, while that which he does not desire he does 
not command." It was after this that the 'Ajaridah were 
divided, some of them following Shu'aib and the rest 

Regarding this point they wrote to 'Abd-al-Karim ibn- 
'Ajrad who was then imprisoned by the Sultan, and in an- 
swer to them he wrote, " We say that what Allah desires 
happens, and what he does not desire does not happen, and 
we do not impute evil to Allah." This answer arrived after 
the death of ibn-'Ajrad. Maimun claimed that 'Ajrad had 
75 decided according to his [Maimun's] opinion because he 
said, " We do not impute evil to Allah." Shu'aib, however, 
said, " No, he agreed with me because he said, we hold the 
opinion that what Allah desires happens, and what he does 
not desire does not happen." The Khazimiyah, and most 
of the 'Ajaridah, sympathized with Shu'aib, while the Ham- 
ziyah and the Kadariyah sympathized with Maimun. 

The Maimuniyah then added to their unbeliefs in regard 
to predestination a kind of Magianism. They permitted 
marriage with granddaughters on both sides ; and they be- 
lieved it was a divine command to fight a tyrannical ruler, 
and whoever was satisfied with his rule. As to anyone who 
refused their view, they do not believe in killing him except 

1 Ibid., vol. i, p. 146. 



when he is opposed to them, attacks their religion, or acts 
as guide to the undesirable ruler. In the next chapter, if 
Allah pleases, we shall mention the Maimuniyah among the 
sects of the Ghulat who deserted the true faith. Now there 
was a man among the Maimuniyah called Khalaf who dif- 
fered from the Maimuniyah as to predestination as well as 
freedom of choice, and will. In these three things he agreed 
with the view of the Sunnites; he was followed by the 
Khawarij of Karman and Mukran. They were, therefore, 
called Khalaf lyah and are the ones who fought Hamzah 
ibn-Akrak al-KharijI x in the land of Karman. 

8. Concerning the Khalaf lyah. These are the followers 
of Khalaf, 2 who fought Hamzah al-Khariji. The Khala- 
f lyah do not believe in fighting except under an Imam. This 
forced them to withhold from fighting because of the lack 
of anyone among them suited to be an Imam. These Khala- 
fiyah tended to agree with the Azarikah in one thing, 
namely, they believed that the children of their opponents 
are in hell. 

9. Concerning the Ma'lumlyah and the Majhuliyah* 
These sects are branches of the main Khazimiyah. The 
Ma'lumiyah differed from their predecessors the Khazi- 
miyah in two things, namely, they claimed that whoever did 
not recognize Allah by all his names, that man was ignorant 
of him (Allah), and anyone ignorant of him was an unbe- 
liever. Secondly, they said that the acts of men are not 4 
created by Allah. They agreed, however, concerning free- 
dom of choice, and will, with the Sunnites, holding that 
freedom of choice goes with the deed, and that it cannot be 
carried out unless Allah wishes. This sect claimed the right 

1 ShahrastanI gives Adrak, vol. i, p. 144. 

2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 145. * Ibid., vol. i, p. 151. 
4 ShahrastanI has " are created," without the negative. 




of the Imamate for someone in its own group, who goes 
out with the sword against his enemies ; they did not, how- 
ever, excommunicate those among them who were Ab- 

As to the Majhuliyah, their views are like those of the 
Ma'lumlyah except that they hold that he who recognizes 
Allah by some of his names (if not all) really knows him, 
and in this matter they condemned the Ma'lumlyah as unbe- 

10. Concerning the Saltlyah. 1 These take their name 
from Salt ibn-'Uthman, who is also called ibn-abi-al-Salt. 
He belonged to the 'Ajaridah, except that he said : " When 
a man agrees with us and becomes a Moslem, we accept 
him, but not his children, for they are not real Moslems 
until they are of age, when they are invited into Islam and 
accept it." 

Side by side with this sect was another sect, the ninth sect 
of the 'Ajaridah, who claimed that neither the children of 
believers nor the children of polytheists were friends or foes 
until they had attained maturity, when they were invited to 
Islam and received or refused it. 

ii. Concerning the Hamziyak. These are the followers 
j j of Hamzah ibn-Akrak (see above) who laid waste Sijistan, 
Khurasan, Mukran, 2 Kuhistan, 3 and Karman, and de- 
feated their big armies. He at first belonged to the 'Aja- 
ridah of the Khazimiyah, but came to differ from them over 
predestination and freedom of choice, agreeing in these 
matters with the Kadariyah. The Khazimiyah, therefore, 
condemned him as unbelieving in this respect. Moreover, he 
claimed that the children of polytheists are condemned to 

2 Not given by Shahrastani. M. Horten, Die Philosophischen System e 
der speculativen Theologen im Islam, p. 62. 

2 De Goeje, ibid., vol. vi, p. 242, country next to Karman. 

3 Ibid., p. 49- 



hell, for which view the Kadariyah condemned him as an 
unbeliever. He then made a covenant with the Abstainers 
among the Khawarij, in consonance with his views on the 
abjuration of whoever does not agree with him on the sub- 
ject of fighting those within the sects of this religion who 
disagree with his view, calling them polytheists. Wherever 
he fought and defeated some enemy he commanded their 
possessions to be burned and their animals slaughtered, and 
at the same time killed the prisoners taken from those who 
disagreed with him. His appearance was in the days of 
Harun al-Rashid, in the year 179. His uprising lasted until 
the early part of the caliphate of al-Ma'mun. When he 
took possession of some provinces, he installed as his Kadi 
over them abu-Yahya Yusuf ibn-Bashshar, as leader of his 
army a man by the name of Jiwaih ibn-Ma'bad, and as 
leader of his bodyguard 'Amr ibn-Sa'id. Many of the poets 
of the Khawarij joined him, such as Talhah ibn-Fahd, 
abu-1-Julandi and others. He started hostilities against the 
Baihaslyah of the Khawarij, most of whom he killed, so 
that it was after this that he was called the Commander of 
the Faithful The poet Talhah ibn-Fahd said about this : 

" The Commander of the Faithful is on the right way and under the 
best of guidance, 
What a marvelous commander, surpassing the other commanders just 
as the shining moon surpasses the small star." 

It was after this that Hamzah made a raid against the 7% 
Khazimiyah among the Khawarij in a part of the country 
known as Faljard, 1 killing great numbers of them. Then 
he himself went to Hirat, 2 whose people prevented him from 
entering it, but he fought those outside of the city and put 
them to the sword. Then 'Amr ibn-Yazid al-Azdi, who at 

1 Ibid., vols, iii-iv, index. 

2 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 18, province of Khurasan. 



this time was governor of Hirat, came against him with an 
army. The battle between them lasted for months. A great 
many from the land of Hirat were killed, including the 
Schismatics, the followers of Haisam al-Shari. 1 The mis- 
sionaries of Hamzah urged the people to join in his error. 

Hamzah then attacked Karukh in the vicinity of Hirat, 
burning the possessions of the people and laying waste their 
trees. After this he fought 'Amr ibn-Yazid al-Azdi in the 
neighborhood of Btishanj (or kh?), 2 in a battle in which 
'Amr was killed. 'All ibn-'Isa ibn-Hadiyan, who was then 
governor of Khurasan, now took part in the war against 
Hamzah, who was forced to flee from him into the land of 
Sijistan after he had killed sixty men of his leaders, not 
to mention his followers. When he reached Sijistan, the 
people of Zaranj 3 prevented his entering their town, so he 
slaughtered some of them with the sword in the wastes near 
the town. He then disguised himself from them (the people 
of Zaranj) by putting his followers into black, which gave 
them the appearance of being the followers of the Sultan. 4 
They were warned of this, however, and succeeded in pre- 
venting his entrance into their city. He therefore laid waste 
the palms in their forests and killed those passing through 
their wastes. He then went in the direction of the river 
Sha'bah and there killed most of the Khalafiyah from 
among the Khawarij, cutting down their trees, burning 
their possessions, and driving away their leader called 
Mas'ud ibn-Kais, who in his flight fell into the river he was 
crossing. His followers are in doubt about his death, and 
79 still look for his appearance. Hamzah thereupon returned 

1 Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 119. 

a De Goeje, ibid., vol. vi, p. 18, province of Khurasan. 
5 Ibid., vol. vi, p. 50, town in Sijistan. 

4 The 'Abbaside party wore black. Banning, Muhammed ibn al- 
Hanafija, p. 72. Melanges de la Faculte Orientale, vol. v, p. 439. 



from Karman, and on his way fell upon the district of Bust, 
one of the districts of Nisabur, where he killed some of the 
Tha'alibah Khawarij who were there. This uprising in 
Khurasan, Karman, Kahistan and Sijistan lasted till the 
end of the days of al-Rashid, and the beginning of the 
caliphate of al-Ma'mun, because the greater part of the 
army of Khurasan was busy fighting Rafi' ibn-Laith ibn- 
Nasr ibn-Saiyar x at the gate of Samarkand. 

When al-Ma'mun came into the caliphate he wrote Ham- 
zah a letter in which he demanded his adherence, which 
merely increased Hamzah's pride. Al-Ma'mun, therefore, 
sent Tahir ibn-al-Husain 2 to fight Hamzah, and a war fol- 
lowed between Tahir and Hamzah. About thirty thousand 
were killed on both sides, most of them being followers of 
Hamzah. In this battle Hamzah was driven to Karman. 
Then Tahir attacked the Abstainers who agreed with Ham- 
zah in theory, and captured three hundred of them. He 
then commanded that all the men be bound together with 
ropes between two trees whose tops had been made to touch 
one another ; the man between the two trees was then cut in 
half, and each one of the two trees bounded back with half 
cf the body bound to it. After this al-Ma'mun recalled 
Tahir ibn-al-Husain from Khurasan, and sent him to his 
headquarters. Hamzah now became very covetous of Khu- 
rasan and proceeded from Karman with an army. He 
was met by 'Abd-al-Rahman al-Nisaburi, with twenty thou- 
sand strong from Nisabur and vicinity. With the help of 
Allah, Hamzah was put to flight and thousands of his fol- 
lowers killed. Hamzah ran away while wounded, and died 
during the flight. By his death Allah gave the world relief ^ 
from him and from his followers. This battle, after which 
Hamzah the Kharijite and Kadarite perished, was one of 

1 Tabari-Zotenberg, vol. iv, p. 471 et seq. 

2 Ibid., p. 484 et seq. 



the events of which the people of Nisabiir boasted, praise 
Allah for this. 

12. Concerning the Tha'alibah. These are the followers 
of Tha'labah ibn-Mashkan. 1 The Tha'alibah claim his 
Imamate as a successor to 'Abd-al-Karim ibn-'Ajrad. It is 
claimed that 'Abd-al-Karim ibn-'Ajrad was Imam until 
Tha'labah differed from him over the judgment of chil- 
dren. When the two differed over this ibn-'Ajrad was con- 
demned and Tha'labah became Imam. The reason for their 
difference was that a man of the 'Ajaridah asked Tha'labah 
for his daughter's hand, whereupon Tha'labah said to him : 
" Show her dowry." The suitor then sent a woman to the 
mother of the daughter to ask her if the daughter was of 
age, for if she was of age and had embraced Islam, according 
to the stipulations which the 'Ajaridah require, it did not 
matter what her dowry was. Her mother said : " Whether 
she be of age or not, since her guardian is a Moslem, she 
is one." 'Abd-al-Karim ibn-'Ajrad was notified of this, as 
well as Tha'labah ibn-Mashkan. 'Abd-al-Karim preferred 
to maintain the independence of children before maturity, 
while Tha'labah said : " We remain their guardians whether 
they be young or mature until they make clear to us that 
they are going to turn away from the truth." When they 
differed over this, each one of them threw off the respon- 
sibility of the sin of the other, and their respective followers 
were divided into two sects. The sects of the 'Ajaridah we 
have already mentioned. The Tha'alibah subdivided into 
six sects. One of them held to the Imamate of Tha'labah 
and accepted no other Imam after him, unmoved by the fact 
that there arose among them different opinions held by the 
'Akhnasiyah and the Ma'badlyah. 

1 Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 147 gives Tha'labah ibn-'Amir instead 
of ibn-Mashkan. 



13. Concerning the Ma'badlyah. The second sect was 81 
the Ma'badiyah, who claimed that the Imam succeeding the 
Tha'alibah was one of their people by the name of Ma'bad. 1 
This man disagreed with all of the Tha'alibah over the 
question of taking alms from, and giving alms to slaves. 
He condemned as unbelievers those who did not accept this 
view, while the rest of the Tha'alibah condemned him as 
unbelieving because he held this view. 

14. Concerning the Akhnasiyah. The third sect was the 
Akhnasiyah, followers of one of their people who was 
known as al-Akhnas. At the beginning of his career he 
agreed with the views of the Tha'alibah concerning the 
guardianship of children. But later he withdrew from them, 
saying: " We must oppose all those living in a land where 
dissembling is sanctioned. 2 Only when the faith of the 
man in question is known to us should we definitely accept 
him. And likewise only when his heresy is definitely known 
to us should we rid ourselves of him." He forbade murder 
and theft in secret, and also claimed that none of the people 
of the Kiblah should begin a fight without being specially 
called for it, unless the enemy is personally known. In this 
view he had many followers. Indeed he was rejected by the 
rest of the Tha'alibah, but he in turn rejected them. 

15. Concerning the Shaibcimyah. The fourth sect of the 
Tha'alibah is the Shaibaniyah, followers of Shaiban ibn- 
Salamah al-Khariji, who separated from the rest in the 
days of abu-Muslim, the founder of the dynasty of the 
banu-al-' Abbas. He helped abu-Muslim in his wars against 
his enemies, and in addition held the doctrine of the likeness 
of Allah to his creatures. The rest of the Tha'alibah, to- 
gether with the Sunnites, condemned his view as anthropo- 

1 Ibid., p. 148. 

2 See note 1, p. no. 



morphia In addition all of the Khawarij condemned him 
for upholding abu-Muslim. Those of the Tha'alibah who 
condemned him were called the Ziyadiyah, the followers of 
Ziyad ibn-'Abd-al-Rahman. 1 The Shaibaniyah claim that 
82 Shaiban repented of his sins, while the Ziyadiyah said that 
among his sins was that of doing violence to the worship- 
pers of Allah, a crime for which repentance could not atone. 
However, he went on aiding abu-Muslim in fighting the 
Tha'alibah, just as he had aided him in fighting the banu- 

16. Concerning the RashTdiyah. The fifth sect of the 
Tha'alibah is called Rashidiyah after a man by the name of 
Rashid. Its peculiar belief is that land which is watered by 
springs and flowing rivers should pay half the tithe, the 
complete tithe being paid on land watered by rain only. 
Ziyad ibn-'Abd-al-Rahman differed from them, saying that 
land watered by springs and flowing rivers should also pay 
full tithe. 

17. Concerning the Mukarramlyah. The sixth division 
of the Tha'alibah is called the Mukarramlyah, followers of 
abu-Mukarram. 2 They claim that he who neglects prayer is 
an unbeliever, not because of the fact of his neglect of prayer, 
but because of his ignorance of Allah. They claimed, more- 
over, that all sinners were ignorant of Allah, and that ignor- 
ance constitutes unbelief. They also held to the doctrine 
that Allah's enmity and friendship depend on a man's relig- 
ious attitude at death. Such are the sects of the Tha'alibah 
and their views. 

18. Concerning the Ibadlyah and their sects. The Iba- 
dlyah, although divided over many things, agreed in ac- 
knowledging the Imamate of 'Abdallah ibn-Ibad. 3 An- 


1 Ibid., 



2 but.. 







other point in which they agreed was the view that the un- 
believers of this community, i. e. those of their community 
who differed from them, were both free from polytheism, 
and at the same time wanting in faith, thus being neither 
believers nor polytheists, but unbelievers. They accepted the 
testimony of such however, and secretly forbade the shed- 
ding of their blood, although publicly claimed it was lawful. 83 
They also countenanced intermarriage with them, as well 
as inheritance from them. In this they claimed that such 
persons are fighting for Allah and his Prophet, although they 
are not true confessors of Islam. In addition, they consid- 
ered some kinds of property owned by those who disagree 
with them as permissible to seize, while other kinds, for ex- 
ample horses and arms, are forbidden. As for their gold 
and silver, they considered it best to return it to its owners, 
when it is seized. 

There were four definite differences which split up the 
Ibadiyah. The names of the groups adhering to the differ- 
ent views were: the Hafsiyah, the Harithiyah, the Yazl- 
diyah, and the " Ashab Ta'ah " (i e. those who do pious 
deeds without the intention of pleasing Allah). Among 
these the Yazidiyah belong to the Ghulat, because they be- 
lieve in the abrogation of the divine law of Islam at the end 
of time. This we will mention later in the chapter on the 
Ghulat sects connected with Islam. In this chapter, how- 
ever, we will mention only the Hafsiyah, the Harithiyah, 
and the Ashab Ta'ah (those who do pious deeds without the 
intention of pleasing Allah). 

19. Concerning the Hafsiyah. This sect acknowledges 
the Imamate of Hafs ibn-abi-1-Mikdam, 1 who was the one 
who held that there was but one thing that lay between 
polytheism and belief, namely, the knowledge of Allah alone. 

Ibid., p. 153. 



Accordingly, the man who knew Allah, but later came to 
disbelieve in other matters, such as his Prophet, paradise, 
hell, forbidden deeds, killing oneself, or the permission of 
adultery and the rest of the forbidden sins, that man is an 
unbeliever, but is nevertheless free from polytheism. He, 
on the other hand, who is ignorant of Allah, and denies 
him, is a polytheist. Their explanation of the case of 
'Uthman ibn-'Affan was similar to that of al-Rafidah in 
regard to abu-Bakr and 'Umar. They also claim that 'AH 
was the one to whom Allah referred when he revealed the 
following: "A man there is who surpriseth thee by his dis- 
course concerning this present life. He taketh God to wit- 
ness what is in his heart; yet is he the most zealous in 
84 opposing thee " (Surah 2, v. 200) ; while 'Abd-al-Rahman 
ibn-Muljim was the one to whom Allah referred when he 
said, " A man too there is who sells his very self out of 
desire to please God." (Surah 2, v. 203.) In addition to 
all this they went on to say that belief in the books and the 
prophets is connected with belief in the unity of Allah. 
And any man disagreeing with this was a polytheist. This 
last view is contradictory to their first view that the differ- 
ence between polytheism and unbelief lies in the knowledge 
of Allah alone, and that he who knew Allah is free from 
polytheism even if he rejects the rest of the beliefs, i. e. the 
Prophet, paradise and hell. Their views thus became con- 
tradictory in this matter. 

20. Concerning the Harithlyah, These are the followers 
of Harith ibn-Mazid al-Ibadi. 1 It was they who agreed 
with the Mu'tazilah in regard to fate. They claimed also 
that ability precedes any deed, a view for which the rest of 
the Ibadiyah condemned them, because it was contrary to 
the views of the Sunnites to the effect that Allah creates the 

1 Ibid., p. 153. 



deeds of his servants, and that ability comes only in con- 
junction with the deed. The Harithiyah claimed that the 
only Imams they had had since the first Muhakkimah were 
'Abdallah ibn-Ibadi and that after him came Harith ibn- 
Mazld al-Ibadi. 

21. Concerning the Ashab Ta'ah who do pious deeds 
without the intention of pleasing Allah. This sect claims 
that it is true that there exist many acts of obedience [vir- 
tues] that are not meant to please Allah. Abu-al-Hudhail 
(see below) and his followers among the Kadanyah also 
asserted this; but our followers said that this is true only 
in one case, that is, during the first intuition of man. When 
a man is guided * by such intuition, he is obedient to Allah 85 
in his deed, even though he had not intended to draw near 
to Allah by performing it, because it is impossible for him 
to draw near to Allah before he really knows him. But 
when he has once learned to know Allah, then, after this 
knowledge, any obedience on his part to Allah is not ac- 
counted to him as righteousness, unless he intended thereby 
to draw near to Allah. All the Ibadiyah, however, claim 
that the houses of their opponents among the people of 
Meccah are places where the unity of Allah is proclaimed, 
with the exception of the camp of the sultan, for his is the 
abode of a tyrant. Over hypocrisy they differed in three 
ways, one sect saying that hypocrisy is not included either in 
polytheism or in faith. As their reason they gave the words 
of Allah on hypocrites : " Wavering between the one and the 
other, belonging neither to these nor to those." (Surah 4? 
v. 142.) Another sect said: "All hypocrisy is polytheism, 
because it is opposed to unity." The third sect said : " We 
do not separate the word ' hypocrisy ' from its proper usage, 
nor do we call any people hypocrites, except those whom 

1 Read istadall and not istadhall. 



Allah has called hypocrites." Those of them who said that 
the hypocrite is not a polytheist, claimed that those who 
were hypocrites in the time of the prophet of Allah were 
unitarians, and at the same time major sinners; thus being 
unbelievers, even though they did not come within the 
category of polytheists, 

'Abd-al-Kahir states: " After all we have related about 
them, (we see that) the peculiarity of their views sets them 
apart from the rest. Among these peculiarities are those 
held by the party which claims that there was no proof for 
mankind of the unity of Allah and his divine and other 
attributes, except through information, or that which takes 
its place along the line of signs and suggestions." An- 
other party said that the law and the commands of Islam 
are binding on whomever enters the religion of Islam, 
whether or not he has heard or known them. The rest of 
86 this sect say a man does not sin in doing something about 
which he knows nothing, except when the proof [of its sin- 
fulness] has been given him. Still others say it is possible 
for Allah to send to his creatures a prophet with no sign 
to prove his veracity. Others, however, contend that who- 
ever attains the knowledge that Allah has forbidden wine, 
or that he has caused the Kiblah to be changed, must be 
certain whether the one who informs him of this is a be- 
liever or an unbeliever. Moreover, it is incumbent upon 
him to know this through information, 1 although he need 
not necessarily know that this has come to him through in- 
formation. The view of still others is that going on foot 
to prayer, or riding or traveling to the Hajj or any of the 
means which help to fulfil that which is required, are of no 
account. What is incumbent is the doing of the deed, re- 
gardless of the means used in its attainment. All parties 

1 For definition of information in this sense see Lane on khabar as 
contrasted with Hadith. 



agree that it is right to ask anyone who differs from them 
with regard to the text of the Koran or its interpretation, 
to return to their way of thinking. And if such a person 
does recant, it is well; if not, he must be killed— it being 
immaterial whether this difference related to something 
about which he was ignorant, or to something about which 
he was not ignorant. They also said that he who commits 
adultery or steals should be assigned the legal punishment 
and then given a chance to repent. If he repents, it is all 
right; if not, he must be put to death. They said also that 
the world will pass away when Allah has caused the people 
who have observed the law to disappear, this being possible 
because he created it only for them. The Ibadlyah accepted 
the possibility of conflicting ordinances existing over one 
and the same thing. For example, in the case of a man 
who goes into a sown field without the permission of the 
owner, this would be breaking a commandment; but accord- 
ing to another command, Allah has forbidden his going out 
of the field, because that would be harmful to the seed, 
which he has been commanded to plant. They said, more- 
over, the fleer in war is not (to be) pursued, if he is one of 87 
the people of the Kiblah, and is a believer in the unity of 
Allah. On the other hand, we receive no women and slaves 
from them. They consider it permissible to kill anthropo- 
morphists and to pursue those who flee, as well as to seize 
their women and children as prisoners. They held that this 
was what abu-Bakr did to apostates. 

There was a man of the Ibadlyah known as Ibrahim, 
who invited some of the members of his sect to his dwelling, 
and gave one of his slaves, who belonged to the same sect, 
an order. When she delayed over it, he swore he would 
sell her to the Arabs, but one of the men whose name was 
Maimun, not the leader of the Maimumyah among the 
'Ajaridah, said to him : " How wilt thou sell a believing 



slave to an unbeliever?" And Ibrahim said to him : "Allah 
has permitted such a sale, and the followers of our sect who 
passed before us have also always permitted it." Maimun 
left the sect, but the rest were uncertain about it, so they 
wrote to their 'Ulamas, who answered that such a sale was 
permissible, and that Maimun should be brought to repent- 
ance, as well as those who were in doubt concerning the 
action of Ibrahim. The result of all this was that three 
sects arose, the Ibrahimiyah, the Maimuniyah, and the 
Wakifah. Owing to the question of the legality of this 
sale, Ibrahim gathered quite a following, who came to be 
known as the Dahhakiyah. This group permitted the mar- 
riage of a Moslem woman to an unbeliever in a country 
where dissembling is sanctioned. 1 But in the case of those 
who are in a country where their own sect is in the ascend- 
ance, this is not permitted. Some were uncertain over 
this question, saying about the wife : "If she dies we will 
not say prayers over her, nor will we accept her inheritance, 
because we do not know what her legal condition is." 

After the Ibrahimiyah, there arose a party called the 
Baihasiyah, followers of abu-Baihas Haisam ibn-'Amir. 2 
88 These say that Maimun was an unbeliever, because he for- 
bade the sale of a woman in a region where dissembling is 
sanctioned, and which is inhabited by the unbelievers of our 
people. The Wakifah were heretics because they did not 
recognize Maimun's heresy and Ibrahim's orthodoxy. 
Ibrahim, on the other hand, was a heretic because he did 
not disclaim the Wakifah. They said : " The reason for 
this is because uncertainty exists only in connection with 
bodies ; the uncertainty with regard to a judgment can occur 
only where no one agrees with it, for if one Moslem agrees 
with it, he who is present cannot help knowing him who 

1 Goldziher, Das Prinsip der takijja im Islam, Z. D. M. G., vol. lx, p. 213. 

2 Shahrastanl, ibid., vol. i, p. 139 ; vol. ii, p. 405. 



knows the truth and acts on it, and him who knows the un- 
truth and acts on it." Then the Baihasiyah said : " We do 
not call him who commits a sin a heretic until he is brought 
to the governor and punished, so that before he is brought 
to the governor, we call him neither a believer nor a here- 
tic." Some of the Baihasiyah said : " When the Imam be- 
comes an unbeliever, his followers also become unbeliev- 
ers." Others said : "All drinks are originally permissible. 
He, therefore, who drinks is forgiven everything which he 
does when drunk, such as neglecting prayer and scorning 
Allah. He can neither be punished nor considered a heretic 
as long as he is drunk." Still others of the Baihasiyah, 
called the 'Aufiyah, said : " Drunkenness is heresy if dur- 
ing drunkenness prayer is neglected, or a similar offense is 
committed." The 'Aufiyah divided off from the Baihasiyah 
and separated into two sects. One sect said: " We repu- 
diate those who desert us after having left home and joined 
us, fighting in our ranks." The other sect said : " No, we 
would keep such an one, because he would then be return- 
ing to a state that was legal for him before he came to us." 
Both sects say that if the Imam is heretical, his followers, 
whether present or absent, are also heretical. Besides the 
Ibadiyah, the Baihasiyah formed the subsects which we 
have mentioned in the Kitab al-Milal wa'l-Nihal. This, 89 
therefore, is all we have to say of them in this book. 

21. Concerning the Sliabibiyah. They are known as al- 
Shablblyah because they owe their origin to Shabib ibn- 
Yazid al-Shaibani, known as abu-1-Sahara. They were 
also known as the Salihiyah after Salih ibn-Mishrah al- 
Khariji. Shabib ibn-Yazid, the Kharijite, was one of the 
companions of Salih, and after him he took over the com- 
mand of his army. The reason for this was that Salih ibn- 
Mishrah al-Tamimi differed from the Azarikah by claim- 
ing that he was one of the Sifriyah, while others said that he 


had been neither a Sifri nor one of the Azarikah. In the 
days when Bishr ibn-Marwan was governor of al-Irak 
under his brother 'Abd-al-Malik ibn-Marwan, Salih rebelled 
against him. Bishr sent al-Harith ibn-'Umair to fight him. 
Al-Mawayini says that Salih rebelled against al-Hajjaj 
ibn-Yusuf, 1 and that it was al-Hajjaj who sent al-Harith 
ibn-'Umair to fight him, and that the battle between the 
two came to a head before the gate of Fort Halula. Salih, 
having been defeated and wounded, took to flight, and 
being near to death he said to his companions : " I name 
Shabib my successor over you. I know there are among 
you some who are more learned than he, but he is a brave 
man in the opinion of your enemies, and feared by them. 
He among you who is learned, let him help him with his 
knowledge." Therefore, as soon as he died, his followers 
paid allegiance to Shabib, until he came to differ with Salih 
about a certain thing, i. e. he and some of his followers 
countenanced the Imamate of one of their women, when 
she took a prominent place in their affairs, and led them out 
against their opponents. They claimed, moreover, that 
90 Ghazalah, the mother of Shabib, held the Imamate after 
the murder of Shabib, until she was killed. This they 
proved by the fact that when Shabib entered al-Kufah, he 
made his mother mount the pulpit of al-Kufah, in order to 
preach. The historians report that at the beginning of these 
affairs, Shabib went to Syria and came to Riih ibn-Zinba' 2 
and said to him : "Ask the Amir of the Faithful to assign a 
stipend for me, as one on the honor-roll ; for I have a large 
following among the banu-Shaiban." So Ruh ibn-Zinba' 
asked this of 'Abd-al-Malik ibn-Marwan. But the latter 
replied : " I do not know this man, and I fear that he is a 

1 Tabarl, ibid., vol. iv, pp. 7, 114 et seq. 

2 Tabarl-De Goeje, vol. ii, pp. 424, 460, 461. 



Harurl." l So Ruh told Shabib that 'Abd-al-Malik ibn- 
Marwan denied any knowledge of him. Shabib replied : 
" He will know me after this." 

He then returned to the banu-Shaiban, and collected about 
a thousand men from among the Salihiyah-Khawarij, with 
whom he took possession of the district which lay between 
Kaskar 2 and al-Mada'in. Al-Hajjaj sent 'Ubaid ibn-abi-1- 
Mukharik al-Mutannabi against him with a thousand horse- 
men, whom Shabib defeated. He then sent against him 
'Abd-al-Rahman ibn-Muhammad ibn-al-Ash'ath, whom Sha- 
bib also defeated. Then he sent out 'Attab ibn-Warka' al- 
Tamimi, whom Shabib killed. This went on for two years, 
Shabib putting to flight twenty of the armies of al-Hajjaj. 
He then fell upon al-Kufah in the night, having a thousand 
of the Khawarij with him, as well as his mother Ghazalah » 
and his wife Jahziyah with two hundred Kharijite women, 
who were armed with lances and girded with swords. When 
he surprised al-Kufah in the night, he attacked the main 
mosque, killing the guard of the mosque and those praying 
in it, and he then made his mother Ghazalah mount the 
pulpit to preach. Khuraim ibn-Fatik al-Asadi says about 9 1 
this : l 

" Ghazalah used the sword to strike 
The people of al-'Irakain for one whole year; 
She went as high as al-'Irakain with an army, 
She therefore caused al-'Irakain suffering." 

His army being scattered, al-Hajjaj waited in his house 

1 Qarurah is a place near al-Kufah where the Khawarij opposing 
Ali lived. Tabarl-Zotenberg, vol. iii, p. 683. 

2 De Goeje, ibid., vol. vi, p. 5, territory watered by the Tigris and 

3 Tabarl, ibid., vol. ii, p. 892. 

4 Kitab al-Agh&ni, vol. xxi, pp. 13, 5. In vol. x, p. 85, Khuraim is read 



until he had gathered his troops around him in the morn- 
ing. In the meantime, Shabib led his companions in prayer 
in the mosque, and at the morning prayer he read the Surah 
of the Cow (Surah 2), and the Surah of the Family of 
'Imran (Surah 3). It was just at that point that al-Hajjaj 
came upon him with four thousand of his army, and the 
two parties fought in the market place of al-Kufah, until 
the companions of Shabib were killed, and Shabib forced to 
flee to al-Anbar, with those who remained with him. Al- 
Hajjaj sent an army in pursuit, and drove Shabib out of 
al-Anbar, 1 into al-Ahwaz. Al-Hajjaj sent Sufain ibn-al- 
Abrad al-Kalbi with three thousand men in pursuit of Sha- 
bib. Sufain encamped on the banks of al-Dujail [Little 
Tigris], while Shabib went to the bridge of Dujail to cross 
over to him. Sufain, however, commanded his followers 
to cut down the ropes of the bridge. The bridge, therefore, 
gave way and Shabib fell into the water with his horse. 
This happened while he was repeating Surah 6, v. 96: 
" This is predestined (by Allah), the mighty, the knowing." 
The followers of Shabib on the other side of al-Dujail then 
paid allegiance to Ghazalah, the mother of Shabib. But 
Sufain ibn-Abrad mended the bridge and crossed with his 
army into the district of the Khawari j , killing most of them, 
including Ghazalah, the mother of Shabib, and his wife 
Jahizah, 2 and taking prisoner the rest of the followers of 
Shabib. He also commanded the divers to bring the body 
of Shabib out of the water, and he took his head and sent it 
92 with the prisoners to al-Hajjaj. When the prisoners were 
brought before al-Hajjaj, he commanded that a certain man 
of them should be killed. That man had said to him: 

*De Goeje, ibid., vol. vi, p. 8. 

2< Abd al-Kahir gives two readings. Jahizah and Jahstyah. 



" Hear from me the two verses with which I will end my 
work." Whereupon he began reciting : 

" I will take refuge with Allah from 'Amr and his followers, 
And from 'All and the Companions of Siffln 
And from Mu'awiyah, the tyrant, and his followers ; 
Bless not, O Allah, the accursed people ! " 

Not only this man's death, but the death of many others 
was commanded. The rest were set free. 

Says 'Abd-al-Kahir to the Shabibiyah of the Khawarij : 
" It might be said, you discountenanced the departure of the 
Mother of the Faithful, 'A'ishah, to al-Basrah with her 
army, of which each member was forbidden [in marriage], 
because in the Koran she is the mother of all the faithful; 
and you claimed that she became a heretic because of this; 
and you applied to her the words of Allah: 'And abide still 
in your houses.' (Surah 33, v. 3.) Why don't you apply 
this verse also to Ghazalah, the mother of Shabib, and so 
charge her, and the Kharijite women also, with heresy, who 
went to fight the armies of al-Hajjaj? Now, if you con- 
sider their action permissible, because their husbands, chil- 
dren or brothers were with them, then you should take 
into account that with 'A'ishah there were her brother 'Abd- 
al-Rahman, and her nephew 'Abdallah ibn-al-Zubair, each 
one of whom was forbidden to her [in marriage]. Besides, 
all Moslems are her children, and therefore all are forbidden 
to her. If, then, some of you accept the Imamate of Ghaza- 
lah, so that her Imamate seems proper, why do you not 
consider 'A'ishah's act permissible?" Praise be to Allah 
for guarding us from heresy. 



The Doctrines of the Erring Sects among the 
Mu'tazilite KadarIyah 

We have already mentioned the fact that the Mu'tazilah 
were divided into twenty sects, each one condemning the 
other as unorthodox. These twenty sects are : The Wasil- 
ryah, the 'Amrlyah, the Hudhaillyah, the Nazzamiyah, the 
Aswariyah, the Mu'ammarlyah, the Iskaflyah, the Ja'far- 
lyah, the Bishriyah, the Murdariyah, 1 the Hishamlyah, the 
Tamamlyah, the Jahizlyah, the Hayitiyah, the Himariyah, 
the Khaiyatlyah, and the followers of Salih Kubbah, the 
Muwaisiyah, the Shahhamlyah, the Ka'biyah, the Jubablyah, 
and the Bahshamiyah, who are named after abu-Hashim 
ibn-al-Jubba'I. This makes a total of twenty-two sects, two 
sects belonging to the heretical groups of the Ghulat Those 
we will mention in the chapter dealing with the sects of the 
Ghulat, they being the Hayitiyah and the Himariyah. The 
other twenty are pure KadarIyah, all agreeing in certain 
heretical doctrines, e. g. the common denial that Allah has 
eternal qualities; the affirmation that Allah has neither 
knowledge, nor power, nor life, nor hearing, nor seeing, 
nor any eternal attribute: together with their view that 
94 Allah never had a name or an attribute. They claim, fur- 
thermore, that it is impossible for Allah to see with his 
eyes. They say that he himself does not see, nor does 
anyone see him. They differ, however, over the question as 

1 ShahrastanI, ibid., gives Mazddriyah, but Murdariyah is correct. 
Cf. Goldziher's article in Z. D. M. G., vol. lxv, p. 363. 



to whether Allah can see things better than himself or not, 
some saying yes, and others no. But they agree in the view 
that the Word of Allah is created as well as his "thou shalt" ; 
his "thou shalt not" and his revelation. All claim that the 
Word of Allah has a beginning, and most of them today call 
his Word created. They also agree that Allah is not a crea- 
tor of the paths of men, nor of any of the deeds of animals. 
They hold, on the other hand, however, that it is man who 
determines his own affairs, without any interference on the 
part of Allah, either in these affairs of men or of any of 
the deeds of animals. It is because of this view that the 
Moslems call them Kadarlyah. 1 Another thing in which 
they agree, is the claim that the sinner within the Islamic 
religion belongs to a class between the two recognized 
classes, i. e. that he is a sinner, but neither a believer, nor 
an unbeliever. Because of this the Moslems call them 
Mu'tazilah, 2 since they secede from the views of the com- 
munity as a whole. 

Furthermore, they agreed in the view that nothing in the 
acts of his servants, which Allah did not command or for- 
bid, was willed by him. In his treatise, al-Ka'bi 3 claimed 
that the Mu'tazilah agreed that Allah is a thing unlike ordi- 
nary things, that he is the creator of bodies and accidents, 
and everything which he created he created from nothing, 
and that all believers perform their acts according to what 
Allah preordains concerning them. He also says that they 95 
agree that those who commit major sins are not forgiven 
unless they repent. In these last assertions of al-Ka'bi there 
are several mistakes with regard to his co-believers, He 
asserts, for example, that the Mu'tazilah agree that Allah 
is a thing unlike other things. As a matter of fact, accord- 

1 Kadara means to determine. 
2 I'tazala means to secede. 

3 Cf. above (pp. 27). This is the same makalah mentioned later. 




ing to all the Mu'tazilah, the attribute of Allah does not 
belong to Allah alone. Al-Jubba'I and his son abu-Hashim 3 
have said : " All creative power is a thing unlike other 
things." They therefore do not limit this praise to their 
lord alone. Secondly, he is mistaken in his report that all 
the Mu'tazilah agree that Allah is the creator of bodies and 
of accidents, for it is known that the most determined of 
the Mu'tazilah exclude all accidents. Mu'ammar, among 
them, claims that Allah created none of the accidents; that 
derived accidents have no creator. How, then, can his 
claim be true that the Mu'tazilah agree that Allah is the 
creator of bodies and of accidents, since some of them 
ignore the existence of accidents, others assert their exist- 
ence, claiming, however, that Allah did not create any of 
them, while others hold that derived accidents, which arise 
later [after creation] , are accidents which have no creator. 
Al-Ka'bi, with the rest of the Mu'tazilah, says that Allah 
did not create the deeds of his worshipers. According to 
those believing in accidents, such deeds are accidents. Al- 
Ka'bfs mistake in this matter, with regard to his compan- 
ions, for example, that the Mu'tazilah were agreed over the 
view that Allah created what he created from nothing, is 
therefore an accident. How could they have been agreed 
about this ? Al-Ka'bi and the rest of the Mu'tazilah, with 
the exception of al-Salihi, 2 claim that all occurrences were 
things before their occurrence. The Basri men among them 
claim that substances and accidents were substances and 
accidents and things in their state of non-existence. The 
correct conclusion in this matter is that Allah creates one 
thing from another ; the view that he creates a thing from 
nothing being true only according to the principle of the 
Sifatiyah, our co-believers, who deny the existence of un- 

1 Cf. below under Bahshamlyah. 

2 Horten, ibid., p. 305. 



real things. As to the claim that the Mu'tazilah agree that 
the faithful perform their acts as Allah has preordained 
them, this is a mistake on his [al-Ka'bfs] part, beecause 
Mu'ammar, 1 who was one of them, claimed that power is 
the act of a substance that is powerful, and not an act of 
Allah. The Asamm, among them, however, deny the sub- 
stance of power because they deny all accidents. In the 
same way his claim that the Mu'tazilah agree that Allah 
does not forgive major sinners who have repented, is an 
error on his part concerning them, for three of their sheikhs 
who agreed with the Wakif lyah as to the punishments which 
threatened major sinners, Muhammad ibn-Shabib al-Basrl, 
al-Salihi, and al-Khalidi considered it sometimes permis- 
sible for Allah to forgive such sins, even without repent- 
ance. In regard to what we have mentioned about the 
Mu'tazilah, al-Ka'bi has made a mistake. The Mu'tazilah 
agree in the matters we referred to. As to the matters over 
which they differ among themselves, those we shall men- 
tion in the section on their sects, please Allah. 

i. Concerning the Wdsillyah from among them. These 
are the followers of Wasil ibn-'Ata al-Ghazza, 2 the head 
of the Mu'tazilah, and their leader in their heresy after 
Ma'bad al- Julian! and Ghailan al-Dimashki. 3 Wasil was gy 
one of those who paid frequent visits to al-Hasan al-Basri 4 
at the time of the rebellion of the Azarikah. At that time 
the people were divided into sects over the question of sin- 
ners within the religion of Islam. One sect claimed that 
all who commit sin, major or minor, are polytheists. This 

1 Cf. below under Mu'ammariyah. 

2 Horten, ibid., p. 125. Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 44- Ibn-Khallikan, 
ibid., vol. iii, p. 642. 

'Leaders of less important sects, preceding the definite split by the 
4 Horten, ibid., p. 120. Ibn-Khallikan, ibid., vol. i, p. 3/0- 



was the view of the Azarikah among the Khawarij, who 
claimed that children of polytheists were polytheists. They 
therefore sanctioned the killing of the children of those who 
differed from them, as well as the killing of their women, 
whether they belonged to the religion of Islam or not. 

The Sifriyah among the Khawarij regarded sinners as 
unbelievers and polytheists, agreeing with the Azarikah in 
this, although they disagreed with them over the killing of 
the children. 

The Najadat among the Khawarij held that a sinner 
upon whose condemnation the community had agreed, is an 
unbeliever and a polytheist, but that the sinner over whom 
the community has differed should be judged according to 
the decision of the canonists in this matter. Furthermore, 
they forgave the sinner so long as he did not know that the 
sin is forbidden, being in ignorance of this fact, until the 
testimony is brought against him with respect to it. 

The Ibadiyah of the Khawarij claimed that the sinner 
who commits a sin against which he has been warned, know- 
ing of the existence of Allah and what has been revealed 
from him, is an unbeliever in that he does not recognize the 
blessings of Allah ; but his heresy is not the same as that of 
the polytheist. Some of the people of this age went so far 
as to claim that those who commited major sins in this com- 
munity were atheists, which is worse than being unbelievers 
who publicly profess their unbelief. 

The learned followers of that age held with the rest of 
the community, that he within the community who commits 
98 a major sin is a believer owing to his knowledge of the 
prophets and the books revealed by Allah ; and also because 
of his knowledge of the fact that all that comes from Allah 
is truth. He commits a major sin, however, even though his 
error does not deprive him of the attributes of believer and 
Islam. To this fifth view conform the companions (of the 
Prophet) in the early community and their followers. 



When the revolt of the Azarikah broke out in al-Basrah 
and al-Ahwaz, and the people came to differ over sinners in 
the five ways which we have mentioned, Wasil ibn -'Ata . 
seceded from the views of all of the preceding sects, claim- \ 
ing that the sinner in that community was neither a believer, • 
nor an unbeliever, giving to this error an intermediate rank 
between the ranks of belief and unbelief. When al-Hasan 
al-Basri heard of this heresy of Wasil, in which he differed 
from the sects preceding him, he drove him out of his audi- 
ence. Wasil, therefore, took his stand near one of the 
columns of the mosque of al-Basrah, having as a companion 
in his error his comrade 'Amr ibn-'Ubaid ibn-Bab, as a slave 
bleats for his mother (text not clear). So on that day it 
was said that these two men had seceded from the accepted 
view of the community, and they therefore called their fol- 
lowers Mu'tazilah [seceders]. The two then publicly pro- 
claimed their heresy about this intermediate rank of sin. 
They also added to it an invitation to join with them in the 
view of the Kadariyah concerning the doctrine of Ma'bad 
al-Juhani. It was that occasion which gave rise to the say- 
ing that Wasil, with his heresy, is a Kadarite. Thus the 
saying : " There is a Kadari in every unbeliever " was orig- 

Wasil and 'Amr agreed with the Khawarij that he who 
commits a major sin should be punished in hell, but they 
added that he is nevertheless a believer in the unity of Allah, 
and therefore neither a polytheist nor an unbeliever. It is 99 
owing to this fact that the Mu'tazilah are not regarded as 
fully Khawarij, because the Khawarij, condemning sinners 
to eternal punishment, call them unbelievers, and take up 
the sword against them, while the Mu'tazilah, although 
condemning them to eternal punishment in hell, do not dare 
to call them unbelievers, nor to fight the people of any of 
their sects, among those whom they fight for differing from 



them. For this reason, Ishak ibn-Suwaid al-'Adawi x as- 
serted that Wasil and 'Amr ibn-'Ubaid belonged to the 
Khawarij, because they [the Khawarij] agreed regarding 
the punishment of sinners. Al-'Adawi said in one of his 
poems : 

" I am free of the Khawarij, nor am I one of them, 
[Free] from al-Ghazzal among them, and ibn-Bab 
And from a people who, when they mention 'All, 
Return the salute to the clouds." 

Then Wasil developed three more heresies in which he 
disagreed with his predecessors. One of these differences 
was owing to the fact that he found the people of his age 
differing about 'AH and his followers and Talhah and al- 
Zubair, and 'A'ishah and the rest of the Followers of the 
Camel The Khawarij claimed that Talhah and al-Zubair, 
and 'A'ishah and their followers in the Battle of the Camel 
proved their disbelief in 'AH by the very fact that they 
fought him. Moreover, they claimed that 'All was in the 
right when he fought the Followers of the Camel, and the 
followers of Mu'awiyah at Siffln, but erred when it came 
to the matter of the arbitration (by the two judges). The 
orthodox, however, hold that both sides in the Battle of the 
Camel were true Moslems. They say that 'All was on the 
right side when he fought the others, and that the Followers 
of the Camel were rebellious, and sinned in fighting 'All. 
Their sin, however, cannot be called heresy, nor transgres- 
sion, for this would render their testimony void, whereas, 
ioo as a matter of fact, judgment is possible on the testimony 
of two just witnesses from either side. Wasil differed from 
both of these sects over this matter, claiming that one of the 
two sides must have been unjust, though not of itself; and 
that the unjust side could not be ascertained. The others 
contend that the unjust of the two sides might have been 

1 J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 43. Quoted in Mas'udi, vol. ii, p. 142. 



'All and his followers, i. e. al-Hasan, al-Husain, ibn-'Abbas, 
'Ammar ibn-Yasir, abti-Aiyub al-Ansari and the rest who 
were with 'All at the Battle of the Camel. Wasil, however, 
contends that the unjust of the two sides were 'A'ishah, 
Talhah, al-Zubair, and the rest of the Followers of the 
Camel. To prove this he said : " If 'All and Talhah, or 
'All and al-Zubair, or a man of the followers of 'AH and a 
man of the Followers of the Camel, should testify before 
me over a handful of parsley, I should not decide by the 
testimony of either of them, because of my knowledge of 
the fact that one of them is unjust, although not of himself. 
Likewise I would not decide on the testimony of two who 
were cursing each other, because of my knowledge of the 
fact that one of them was unjust, although not of himself. 
But if two men of one of the sides testified, his testimony 
would be accepted." And many are the tears shed by the 
eyes of the outspoken Rafidah over this sinful seceding of 
the Sheikh al-Mu'tazilah on the question of the just cause 
of 'AH and his followers, and the view of Wasil about the 
whole matter. As we have said in one of our poems : 

" A view which is not connected with Wasil 1 — May Allah split up 
their unity by this." 

And if Allah pleases, we will give the end of this poem later. 

2. Concerning the 'Amriyah among them. These are the 
followers of 'Amr ibn-'Ubaid ibn-Bab, 2 the f reed-man of 101 
the banu-Tamim. His grandfather was one of the captives 
of Kabul. The innovations and heresies in religion never 
appeared except from the children of captives, as is men- 
tioned in reports. The things in which 'Amr agreed with 
Wasil were the following: Predestination, the heresy of 

1 Play on word wdsil which means connector. 
1 Shahrastanl, ibid., vol. i, p. 47. Horten, ibid., pp. 150-153. 



Kadar, the wrong view about having an intermediate rank 
for certain errors, and the rejection of the testimony of two 
men, one of whom came from the Followers of the Camel 
and the other from the followers of 'AH. To these heresies 
'Amr added the following: that both the sides fighting in 
the Battle of the Camel were wrong. Therefore, while 
Wasil rejected the testimony of two men, one of whom 
was from the Followers of the Camel, and the other from 
the followers of 'AH, but accepted the testimony of two men 
from the same side; 'Amr claimed that such a testimony 
was to be rejected even if the witnesses came from the same 
side, because he considered both sides to< be wrong. After 
Wasil and 'Amr, the Kadariyah differed over the same 
point. Al-Nazzam [see below] , Mu'ammar and al-Jahiz 1 
agreed with Wasil about the sides at the Battle of the 
Camel. But Haushab and Hashim al-x\ukas said that the 
leaders of the sect are safe, but the followers are condemned 
to hell. 

The Sunnites and the orthodox held that 'All and his fol- 
lowers were in the right in the Battle of the Camel, claim- 
ing, furthermore, that al-Zubair repented on that day and 
refrained from fighting. When he reached the Wadi al- 
Siba', 'Amr ibn-Harmuz, 2 taking him by surprise, killed 
him. 'All gave the murderer the good news that he was 
going to hell. Talhah was on the point of returning, when 
Marwan ibn-al-Hakam, who was among the Followers of 
the Camel, shot an arrow at him and killed him. 3 It was 
'A'ishah who undertook the reconciliation between the two 
102 parties. The banu-Azd and the banu-Dabbah, however, had 
the upper hand over her, so that she failed. Whoever calls 

1 J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 56. Brockelmann, loc. cit., vol. i, p. 152. 

2 Cf. Tabari, Zotenberg, vol. iii, p. 660. 

3 Ibid. J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 66. 



either both or one of the two sides unbelieving, he, rather 
than they, is the unbeliever. Such is the view of the sun- 
nites, praise be to Allah for this. 

3. Concerning the Hudhaillyah from among them. These 
are the followers of abu-al-Hudhail Muhammad ibn-al- 
Hudhail, known as al-'Allaf. 1 He was a client of 'Abd-al- 
Kais, and followed the example of most children of cap- 
tives, among- whom the majority of heresies arose. The rest 
of the sects of Islam, even including his own followers, the 
Mu'tazilah, branded him as an unbeliever. The man known 
among the Mu'tazilah by the name of al-Mirdad wrote a 
long book called Concerning the Heresies of abu-al-Hudhail , 
and Concerning his Peculiar Forms of Unbelief. Al- 
Jubba'i also wrote a book refuting the belief of abu-al-Hud- 
hail concerning what is created, in which book al-Jubba I 
condemned him as an unbeliever. Ja'far ibn-Harb, 2 well 
known among the Mu'tazilah, also had a book entitled Re- 
buking abu-al-Hudhail. This book points out the unbelief 
of abu-al-Hudhail, and also mentions the fact that his views 
tended toward the views of the Dahriyah. 

Among the heresies of abu-al-Hudhail was his view that 
the preordination of Allah can cease, at which time Allah 
would be no longer omnipotent. As a conclusion from this 
view, he claimed that the bliss of the people of paradise 
and the torture of the people in hell will cease ; the people 
of paradise and hell remaining in a state of lethargy, unable 
to do anything. Under these circumstances Allah would 
not be able to raise a man from the dead, nor to cause the 
death of a living man, nor would he be able to cause the 
stationary to move, nor the thing in motion to be station- 

1 Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 48 et seq. Horten calls him the client of 
the 'Abd-al-Kais of Basrah, (p. 246 et seq.) Ibn-Khallikan, ibid., vol. 
ii, p. 667. 

3 Horten. ibid., p. 251. 



ary, nor would he be able to form anything, nor to annihi- 
late anything; and this when people are supposedly sane! 
His views on this subject are worse than those of the man 
who believed that paradise and hell would cease, as did 
Jahm. Jahm, however, although believing that paradise 
and hell could cease, contended, nevertheless, that after 
they had ceased, Allah would be able to create their like. 
This abu-al-Hudhail denied, maintaining that after the 
cessation of his preordination, his God had no ability to do 
anything. Among the Mu'tazilah, al-Mirdad attacked abu- 
al-Hudhail, saying : " According to this, it would follow 
that if the friend of Allah in paradise happened to be offer- 
ing a cup to someone in one hand, and a precious gift in the 
other, when the time of perpetual stillness fell upon all he 
would forever have to remain in the position of a man 
being crucified." 

Abu-al-Husain al-Khaiyat * offered the following two 
pleas as an apology for abu-al-Hudhail . He claimed first 
that abu-al-Hudhail meant that when the preordination of 
Allah had ceased, he would gather together all enjoyment 
for the people of paradise and they would then remain thus 
in perpetual rest. Secondly, he claimed that abu-al-Hudhail 
had maintained these views for the sake of arguing with 
his opponents over their investigations of his answers. 
This first plea of abii-al-Husain, in defence of abu-al-Hu- 
dhail is, however, false from two points of view. First, he 
held that two opposite enjoyments can unite in one place at 
one time, a condition which is as impossible as the union of 
pleasure and pain in one place. Secondly, if this plea were 
I0 4 true, it would necessarily follow that the condition of the 
people of paradise after Allah's preordination had ceased 
would be better than their condition when Allah was omni- 
potent. As regards his claim that abu-al-Hudhail taught the 

1 Shahrastanl, ibid., vol. i, p. 79. 


cessation of Allah's preordination only in order to encour- 
age argument, it is refuted by the fact that abu-al-Hudhail 
wrote down and pointed out this fact in his book called, 
Proofs of our Assertions. Besides, in his book known as 
The Book of the Moulds, he gives a chapter on the refuta- 
tion of the Dahriyah, in which he states their views about 
believers as follows : " If it is possible to have a motion 
after every motion, and so on to the end ; and an occur- 
rence after every occurrence, to the end; then is not the 
view right which contends that there is no motion unpre- 
ceded by a motion, nor an occurrence unpreceded by an 
occurrence?" He compromised between the two, however, 
saying: "Just as an occurrence must have a beginning 
which is not preceded by another occurrence, so there must 
be an occurrence at the end which is not followed by an 
occurrence." It is for this reason that he asserted that 
Allah's ability to preordain ceased. The rest of the theo- 
logians of Islam, however, distinguished between the pre- 
ceding occurrence and the following occurrence by charac- 
teristic distinctions which escaped abu-al-Hudhail. It was, 
therefore, because of his ignorance of this that he held his 
view on the cessation of Allah's preordination. These evi- 
dent distinctions we have mentioned in the chapter entitled. 
" Evidences on the fact that the world is created," a chap- 
ter which is to be found in our books treating of this 


The second of abu-al-Hudhail's heresies is his view that 
the people of the next world are forced to remain as they 
are; the people of paradise being forced to eat and drink 
and intermarry, while the people of hell are forced to [stick 
to] their views. In the other world, no creature will be 
allowed to perform a deed, or acquire an opinion. Allah is 
the creator of their views and their actions, and all else that 
is ascribed to them. The Kadariyah then blamed Jahm be- 



cause of his view that the servants of Allah in this world 
are forced to do what they do of themselves, thus opposing 
our sect in its view that Allah is the creator of that which 
his servants acquire. They say to our sect : " If he (Allah) 
is the creator of the oppression of men, then he must be an 
oppressor, and if he is the creator of the lies of men, then 
he must be a liar." They might as well say to abu-al-Hud- 
hail : " If you say that Allah, in the next world, creates the 
falsehood put in the mouth of the people of hell, as they 
say : ' By Allah, our Lord, we were not polytheists ' ( Surah 
6, v. 23), then he must be a liar, according to the view that 
the liar is the one who creates the lie." But this conclusion 
against us does not hold good, because we do hot hold that 
the oppressors are the ones who created the oppression and 
the liar the lie. On the contrary, we hold that the oppressor 
is the one from whom oppression proceeds, and the liar the 
one from whom the lie proceeds, not the one who creates 
them. Al-Khaiyat offered as a plea for this innovation of 
abu-al-Hudhail the following : " The next world is a place 
of rewards and not a place of responsibility; therefore if 
the people of the other world were the performers of their 
acts, they would be responsible for them, and their reward 
106 an d punishment would be in another world." To this view 
of al-Khaiyat it can be answered : " Do you agree with, or 
reject, this view of abu-al-Hudhail? If you agree, then you 
say about it the same thing that he says, which, as a matter 
of fact differs from what you say. But if you reject it, then 
there is no meaning to your apology for a thing which you 
yourself condemn." We, however, say to abu-al-Hudhail : 
" Why do you say that the condition of the people of the 
other world is such as to render them unable to perform 
deeds, and then say that they are commanded to thank 
Allah for their enjoyment, but not commanded to pray, nor 
to give alms, nor to fast, nor are they to cease from disobe- 



dience ; and yet their reward for gratitude and for ceasing 
from disobedience was to be eternal beatitude for them? 
And why do you deny that those who are in the next world 
are to cease from disobedience, and yet are sinless; as we 
hold, together with most of the Shiites, that the prophets 
were forbidden sin in this world already, and were sinless ; 
just as the angels were forbidden sin, and were sinless. 
For this reason Allah says of them : ' They disobey not 
Allah in what he hath commanded them, but execute his 
behests ' " (Surah 66, v. 6). 

The third of his heresies was his view that there are those 
who are obedient without the intention of pleasing Allah. 
This is also the view of the Ibaclryah among the Khawarij. 
He claims that there is no Dahri in the world, nor any 
unbeliever, who is not obedient to Allah in many things, 
although disobeying him as far as his unbelief is concerned. 
The Sunnites and the orthodox, however, say : Obedience 
to Allah from one who does not know him, is possible only 107 
in one case, i. e. where there is speculation and deduction, 
which are necessary before attaining a knowledge of Allah. 
If a man fulfils this, he becomes obedient (that is, accept- 
able) to Allah, because Allah has commanded him this. 
And this is true even if his aim in this act of speculation 
may not be to draw near to him by means of it. No other 
obedience to Allah is possible for him, unless its aim be to 
draw near to him through it, because it is possible for him 
to draw near to Allah if a knowledge of Allah is attained 
by this first speculation. Without this contemplation, how- 
ever, he cannot draw near to Allah, unless by some chance 
he knew Allah before this speculation and deduction. Abu- 
al-Hudhail supported this claim, namely that it is possible 
to obey Allah without knowing him, by saying that the com- 
mands of Allah are in opposition to that which he forbids, 
if, therefore, he who does not know Allah, neglected all his 



commands, he must be doing everything which Allah for- 
bids, and in the same manner anyone who has neglected all 
obedience must be committing all sins. If this were the case 
a Dahrl would be a Jew, a Christian, a Magian, or an adher- 
ent of some other unbelief. If the Magian, however, rejects 
all his unbeliefs except his Magianism, he would still be dis- 
obeying by his Magianism, which we know was forbidden 
him, but he would be obeying Allah in the rejection of the 
rest of his unbeliefs, because Allah had commanded that 
they be rejected. Verily I say to him, that the commands of 
Allah and his prohibitions are not what you think them to 
I0 8 be, for there is not a quality of obedience without a quality 
in opposition to it and to each other; there are no qualities 
of belief which do not have some qualities opposed to them 
and at the same time to each other. This is similar to the 
matter of standing up and sitting down, bending down and 
lying down. A man may not be sitting, but he would not 
then necessarily be doing all its opposites ; he would not be 
sitting, however, if he were doing one of its opposites. In 
like manner, a man is outside of the realm of obedience to 
Allah by following one line that is opposed to all the lines 
of obedience, because that kind of unbelief is opposed to 
another kind of unbelief, just as it is opposed to the rest of 
the lines of disobedience. All this is self-evident, although 
abu-al-Hudhail was ignorant of it. 

The fourth of his heresies is his view that Allah is not 
only Allah himself, but his knowledge is himself, and his 
power is also himself. From this view he must conclude 
that Allah is knowledge and power. But if he is knowledge 
and power, it is not possible that he should be knowing and 
powerful ; because knowledge cannot be knowing, and power 
cannot be powerful. He would be forced to draw the same 
conclusion if he said that the knowledge of Allah is Allah, 
and his power is Allah. This amounts to saying that his 



knowledge is his power. And if Allah's knowledge is his 
power, abu-al-Hudhail must conclude that all that is known 
to him is performed by his power ; the Being of Allah, there- 
fore, would be something performed by his power, because 
it is known by him. This is a form of unbelief, and what 
leads to it is like it. 

His fifth heresy was his division of the words of Allah 
into that which needs an object and that which does not 
need an object. 1 He claims that the creative word of Allah 
to things, " Be," is not uttered to an object. The rest of 
his words, however, had a beginning in some corporeal sub- 
stance. Yet all his words, according to abu-al-Hudhail, are 
accidents. Furthermore, he claimed that his creative word 
to things, " Be," is of the same kind as the word of man, 
" Be." He thus differentiated between two accidents which 
were of one kind, the difference [between them] being that 
one needs an object, while the other is able to do without an 
object. As to his view of the existence of a decree of Allah 
without an object, in this view the Basrah Mu'tazilah share, 
adding to it that this word [of Allah] is the same as a de- 
cree of ours which needs an object. Consequently, accord- 
ing to him, one of the speakers would be no better than the 
other. 2 Abu-al-Hudhail has no right to assert that the per- 
son saying the word is better in what he says than any other, 
because he had maintained that, in the other world, Allah 
creates the words of the people of paradise and the words 
of the people of hell, but he is not the one who speaks their 
words. Moreover, his theory of the existence of a word 
without an object has led him to hold it correct to have 

1 Mahall is literally space. In this case it means the place of origin, 
therefore author or subject. Cf. Macdonald, Muslim Theology, Juris- 
prudence and Constitutional Theory, under mahal. 

2 Horten, ibid., p. 265. This sentence is ambiguous in the Arabic. 
Horten translates it very freely. It probably means that where there 
is no subject there can be no difference. 



words without a speaker, which is an impossibility; what 
leads to it is like it. 

His sixth heresy is his view that evidence along the line 
of reports [of individuals] concerning matters which are 
not present to the senses, such as the miracles of the proph- 
ets, or concerning other matters, cannot be accepted unless 
there are twenty witnesses, one or more of whom is from 
the people of paradise (Moslems). Nor would he neces- 
sarily accept as evidence the information of unbelievers and 
impious, even if their number should amount to the number 
required, for their agreement on a falsehood is inconceiv- 
able (mutawatir) , 2 unless one of them is a man of paradise 
He claimed, moreover, that information coming from less 
than four persons is not to be accepted. Information, how- 
ever, coming from any number over four up to twenty may 
be accepted, or may not. The attainment of knowledge, 
however, from this information is certain if one of the 
no twenty is a man of paradise. This fact about the twenty 
witnesses he proved by the word of Allah : " Twenty of 
you who persevere will conquer two hundred idolaters" 
(Surah 8, v. 66). To fight these two hundred idolaters, 
however, was not legal unless the twenty were evidence 
against them. Accordingly the information of one person 
must be sufficient for proof (that a thing is legal), because 
in this case one person had to fight ten unbelievers, and the 
fact that he was permitted to do this was a sign one was 
enough as evidence against them. 'Abd-al-Kahir says : 
what abu-al-Hudhail meant by his statement that twenty 
were necessary for establishing evidence, if one of them 
was a person from paradise, is intended for the abolition of 
the use of the information in the legal canons; because he 

1 The mutaw&tir is the report of a people numerically indefinite, whose 
agreement upon a lie is inconceivable, in view of their large number. 
Cf. Aghnides, Mohammedan Theories of Finance, p. 40. 



meant that there should necessarily be among them one of 
the people of paradise who would be, according to his 
heresy, a Mu'tazilah and a Kadarite, and therefore agree 
with him in his heresy about fate and the cessation of the 
power of Allah to preordain. He who does not hold this 
is not, from his point of view, a believer nor of the people 
of paradise. No one before abu-al-Hudhail held a heresy 
similar to his heretical view with regard to the necessity of 
having twenty witnesses. 

His seventh heresy was that he differentiated between the 
acts of the heart and the acts of the organs (of the body), 
by saying that it is not possible for the acts of the heart to 
come from their author, if he has no power over them, or is 
dead. On the other hand, it is possible for the acts of the 
organs (of the body) to come from their author even after 
his death, or after the cessation of his power, in case he is 
living. He went on to say that the dead and the incapaci- 
tated can be the authors of the acts of the organs, through in 
the power which existed before death or incapacitation. But 
al-Jubba I and his son abu-Hashim claim that the acts of the 
heart are in this case like the acts of the organs (of the 
body), in that it is possible for them to occur when the 
author is incapacitated, and even after the power to produce 
the act has ceased. Thus the view of al-Jubba'i and his son 
on this matter is worse than that of abu-al-Hudhail. Abu- 
al-Hudhail, however, was ahead of him in holding that it 
was possible for both the dead and the incapacitated to be 
authors of the acts of the organs. In this heresy, al-Jubba'i 
and his son followed abu-al-Hudhail's example; they went 
further, however, and concluded that it was possible for an 
incapacitated man to be the author of the acts of the heart. 
The founder of a heresy, however, is responsible for its 
sinfulness, and the sinfulness of those who follow it, up till 
the day of judgment, with no decrease in the sinfulness of 
those who choose to follow it. 



His eighth heresy was as follows : When he discovered 
that men differed over the question as to whether knowledge 
is natural or acquired, he rejected both of these views, as 
well as the view that what is known through the senses and 
through intuition is natural knowledge, while what is known 
through induction is acquired knowledge. He then set up 
for himself a view that differed from all those of his prede- 
cessors, saying that knowledge is of two kinds, the one 
is compulsory knowledge, such as the knowledge of Allah, 
and knowledge of the evidence leading to a knowledge of 
him ; the second is elective and acquired, such as knowledge 
of an event gained through the sense, or through syllogisms. 
From this he drew his view of the belated character of 
knowledge, in which he differed from the rest of the be- 
112 lievers. According to this view, he said that the child in the 
second stage of his knowledge of himself does not have to 
bring all his knowledge of unity and justice together with- 
out a break, but he must bring with the knowledge of the 
unity and justice of Allah the knowledge of all that Allah 
has commanded him to do. The result is that if he does not 
fulfil the requirement of this second stage of his knowledge 
of himself, and happens to die in the third stage, he dies an 
infidel and an enemy to Allah, worthy of eternal fire. As 
to the knowledge with regard to information which can be 
known only through hearing, such knowledge should be 
attained by the child in the second stage of hearing, which 
constitutes a good excuse for him. Bishr ibn-Mu'tamar, 1 
however, said that it was in the third stage that the child 
must show his mental knowledge, when in the third stage 
of his knowledge of himself, because the second stage is a 
stage of speculation and of thought, so that if he does not 
fulfil this in the third stage, and happens to die in the fourth 

1 Horten, ibid., p. 161. Shahrastanl, ibid., vol. i. p. 65. 


stage, he will then be an enemy of Allah, worthy of eternal 
fire. Thus there are a few fatalists (Kadarites) who de- 
nied the view of the Azarikah that the children of their op- 
ponents were condemned to hell, and denied also the view 
of those who held that the children of unbelievers are con- 
demned to hell; these same men claimed that the children 
of believers who died in the third or fourth stage of their 
knowledge of themselves, were condemned to eternal fire, 
although they had committed no* unblief . 

His ninth heresy lay in the fact that he contended that it 
is possible for a body having parts to have its motion con- 
fined to certain of its parts. In the case of color, he held TI ^ 
that this was not possible. The rest of the philosophers 
said that it is only the part in which motion arises that is 
the thing moving, and that the motion does not apply to the 
combination of all parts, just as the part which is black, is 
the black part; blackness not extending to the combination 
of all the parts. If, however, the combination of all the 
parts moves, there is motion in every part, just as if the 
whole is black, every part is black. 

His tenth heresy is his view that the part of a body which 
cannot be divided, cannot have a color of itself, when it is 
alone, nor can it be seen when there is no color in it. This 
forces the conclusion that if Allah created the part by itself, 
he could not see it. Praise be to Allah who has preserved 
the Sunnites from the heresies which we have given in this 
chapter on abu-al-Hudhail. 

4. Concerning the Nagzamlyah. These are the followers 
of abu-Ishak Ibrahim ibn-Saiyar, called al-Nazzam. 1 The 
Mu'tazilah try to deceive the common people when they 
assert that he was called al-Nazzam because he composed 

*J. A. O. S., vol. xxix, p. 58. Horten, ibid., p. 189. ShahrastanI, 
ibid., vol. i, p. 53. Macdonald, ibid., pp. 140, 141, 152. 



prose and well-measured poetry. As a matter of fact, he 
composed only beads in the market of al-Basrah, and it was 
because of this that he was called al-Nazzam. 1 During his 
youth he mingled with the sect of the Dualists and the 
Sophists (Sumamyah), who assert that all proofs are equal. 
He later fell in with the heretic philosophers, after which 
he associated with Hisham ibn-al-Hakam al-Rafidi. From 
Hisham and the heretic philosophers he took the view on 
the non-existence of the atom that is indivisible. From this 
he drew his view of the leap which no one before had 
thought of. From the dualists he took his view that he 
114 who performs justice can neither oppress nor lie. He fur- 
ther took from Hisham ibn-al-Hakam that colors, taste, 
smell and sound are bodies. It was from this heresy that 
he drew the conclusion that bodies penetrate each other in 
the same space. He agreed, 2 moreover, with the dualists, 
with the innovators among philosophers, and with the quasi- 
heathen in Islam. He also admired the view of the Brah- 
mans who disbelieved in prophecies. He did not, however, 
venture to profess this view, fearing the sword. Further- 
more, he denied the miraculous nature of the Koran as re- 
gards its composition, and he also denied the miracles which 
are reported of our Prophet — for example, "the splitting of 
the moon; that stones in his hand had praised Allah; that 
water had sprung forth between his fingers " — so that deny- 
ing the miracles of our Prophet he almost came to deny his 
prophecy. Moreover, he found the fulfilment of the regula- 
tions of Islamic law unbearable. He did not, however, dare 
to profess its abolition, although he denied evidences leading 
to it. It was on this ground that he denied " the evidence 
of the agreement of the community and the evidence of 
analogy," in developing the derivative institutes of the 

1 Naszdm means a composer. 

2 Text uncertain, wadalin? Horten, ibid., p. 170. 



law. He also rejected proof drawn from witnesses whose 
evidence is not accepted, as well as the claim that knowl- 
edge is natural. He himself taught that the Companions 
had agreed in developing these institutes, and he reminded 
the people of what he had read in the pages written by 
his opponents. He criticized the juridical decisions of the 
Companions, however, and of all of the sects of Islam, 
which had split over doctrine or tradition, including the 
Khawarij and the Shi'ites and the Najjariyah. Most of the 
Mu'tazilah united in condemning al-Nazzam. Of the Kada- 
riyah, only a few followed him in his errors, e. g. al-Aswari 115 
and ibn-Hayit, Fadl al-Hadathi and al-Jahiz; each one of 
them differing with him on some of his errors, and adding 
to others. The admiration of this minority which followed 
him was like the admiration of the scarab beetle when rolling 
its ball (of dung). Most of the sheikhs of the Mu'tazilah 
agreed that he was a heretic, including abu-al-Hudhail, who 
called him a heretic in his book entitled An Answer to al- 
Nazzam, also in his book directed against him on Accidents, 
Man and Indivisible Atoms. The view for which al-Jubba 1 
condemned him, was the one which held that the deeds of 
Allah are brought forth by the affirmation of (their) crea- 
tion. In this case it is al-Jubba'i who is the heretic, and no 
one else. We would like to mention a few of some of the 
heresies of the Mu'tazilah. 

Al-Jubba'i also condemned al-Nazzam for rejecting that 
Allah could be tyrannical, as well as for his view about the 
four humours of the body. It was on this last subject that 
he wrote a book against him and against Mu'ammar. 

Among the Mu'tazilah there was also al-Iskaf 1 who wrote 
a book against al-Nazzam in which he condemned him for 
most of his doctrines. Ja'far ibn-Harb also wrote a book 
concerning al-Nazzam' s heresy in that he denied the in- 
divisible atom. As to the books written in condemnation 



of him by the Sunnites and the orthodox, Allah alone can 
count them. Our sheikh abii-1-Hasan al-Ash'arl wrote 
three books on the heresies of al-Nazzam. Al-Kalanisi 1 
also wrote books and dissertations against him. The 
Kadi abu-Bakr Muhammad ibn-abl-al-Taiyib al-Ash'arl 
wrote a big book on some of the fundamental doctrines of 
al-Nazzam. He has pointed out his errors in the book on 
the heresies of the expositors. In this book of ours we 
shall mention the most famous of al-Nazzam's heresies. 
First of all we will take up his theory that Allah has not 
116 the power to do to his worshippers that which is not to 
their good. Nor does he consider Allah capable of taking 
away a jot from the enjoyment of the people of paradise, 
because their enjoyment is their just share, and the lessen- 
ing of this share would therefore be injustice. Nor can 
Allah increase the torment of those in hell a jot, nor take 
a jot away from it. He also claims that Allah has not 
the power to remove anyone from paradise, or to throw 
into hell anyone who does not belong to the people of hell. 
According to this view, he said that if a child stood at 
the edge of hell, Allah would have no power to throw him 
in, but the child could throw himself in, and the Zabaniyah 2 
can throw him in. To this he added that Allah could not 
blind a person who has sight, nor give a disease to a healthy 
one, nor impoverish a rich person, if he knows that sight 
and health and wealth are for their good. In the same 
way he cannot enrich a poor person, nor heal a sick one, 
if he knows that disease and sickness and poverty are for 
their good. To this he then added the view that Allah 
could not create a snake or a scorpion, or a body of 

1 An opponent of al-Ash'arl who died in 870. Horten, ibid., p. 375. 

2 Certain angels, the tormentors of the damned in hell; so-called 
because of their thrusting the people of the fire thereinto. The angels 
mentioned in the Koran Surah 66, v. 6. 



any kind, if he knows that the creation of something else 
would be better than their creation. The Basriyah among 
the Mu'tazilah condemned this view and said that he who 
has power over justice must have power over injustice, and 
he who has power over truth must have power over false- 
hood, though he may not commit oppression, nor lie, be- 
cause of the hideous nature of these acts or because he real- 
izes his ability to do without them, because ability to do a 
thing necessitates also the ability to do the opposite. Now, 
if al-Nazzam held that Allah had no power over injustice 
and falsehood, he would be forced to say that he had no 117 
power over truth and justice either. Such a view as the 
latter is heresy, bringing in its train other heresies as bad. 
They also say that there is no difference between al-Naz- 
zam' s view that Allah had no> power to hinder nor to cause 
to act, and the view claiming that he is forced to perform 
deeds without his own choice. This also is a heresy, bring- 
ing in its train other heresies as bad. One of the remark- 
able acts of al-Nazzam in this connection is that he wrote 
a book on Dualism and in it expressed his surprise at the 
view of the Manicheans, that light orders its different kinds 
which are to be found in darkness to do good, although 
darkness can do only evil and can predicate naught but evil 
deeds. Al-Nazzam expressed his surprise that the Dualists 
blame darkness for doing evil when they claim that it has no 
power to do good, but can do evil only. One might say to 
him, " If, according to you, Allah is to be praised for per- 
forming justice and truth, and has not the power to per- 
form injustice and falsehood, why then do you deny the 
view of the Dualists in blaming darkness for doing evil, 
even though it can do nothing else?" 

His second heresy was his view that man is a soul, which, 
in the form of a rarified body enters the compact body. 
This was in addition to his other view that this soul is life 



in union with the body. He claimed further that in the 
body it became a compact union, and therefore one sub- 
stance without difference or opposition. From this view 
results the heresy that it is not man who can be seen, but 
the body in which he is. This would force the conclusion 
118 that the Companions did not see the Prophet of Allah, but 
saw only the mould in which the Prophet was. According 
to this no one sees his father and his mother, but only their 
moulds. Furthermore, if he says of man that he is not an 
external body, but only a soul within a body, he must then 
say the same of the ass, that he too is not his body and is 
only a soul in his body, and that he is the life in union 
with the body. This would be true also of the horse 
and the rest of the four-footed animals, and all the birds 
and reptiles and the rest of animal kind. It would apply 
also to angels and jinn, man and devils. It would, there- 
fore, follow that no one ever sees an ass or a horse or a 
bird, or any kind of animal. Furthermore, the Prophet did 
not see an angel, nor do the angels see each other. In fact, 
anyone looking must see only the moulds of the things which 
we have enumerated. Still further, when he says that the 
soul in the body is the man, and that it is the doer rather 
than the body which is its mould, he must then conclude 
that it is the soul which is the adulterer or the thief or the 
murderer. Accordingly, if the body is lashed, or the hand 
cut off, the amputated member is not after all the real thief, 
nor the body lashed the real adulterer . . . this is sufficient; 
for Allah has said : " The whore and the whore-monger 
. . . scourge each one of them with an hundred stripes " 
(Surah 24, v. 2). And he has also said : "As to the thief, 
whether man or woman, cut ye off their hands in recom- 
pense for their doings" (Surah 5, v. 42). This is sufficient 
proof from the Koran of his error. 
1 J 9 His third heresy was his view that the soul which is man. 



has the power (to act) of itself, lives through itself, and 
becomes incapacitated because of a calamity which befalls 
it, this incapacity itself being a body. This view forces him 
to say that the incapacitated and the dead are the soul of 
the man who is living and able, or else that the incapacitated 
dead is the man's body. If he says that man is the thing 
which becomes incapacitated and dies, he must give up his 
view that man lives by himself, and has the power to act of 
himself ; for in that case his soul exists even in the case of 
his death, while he himself is dead or incapacitated. If, on 
the other hand, he claims that it is the soul which has strength 
of itself, and that it is the body that dies and becomes in- 
capacitated, then it must be different from that which lives 
and has power. From this it follows that Allah has no 
power to resuscitate the dead, nor cause the living to die, 
nor to give power to an incapacitated person, nor to in- 
capacitate an able one. For the living cannot die, nor the 
strong become incapacitated. But Allah has attributed to 
himself the ability to resuscitate the dead. If al-Nazzam 
claims that the soul lives and has power of itself, and dies 
and becomes incapacitated only because harm comes to it, 
then he does not differ from those who claim that the soul 
is dead and becomes incapacitated of itself, and lives and 
has strength only through the life and strength that enter 

into it. 

His fourth heresy is the view that the soul is of one kind, 
and its deeds of another kind; that bodies are of two kinds, 
living and dead; and that it is impossible for the living 
body to die, or for the dead to become alive. This view he 
took from the Burhanite Dualists, who claim that light is 
an imponderable living body whose property is to be always 120 
ascending, and that darkness is a heavy dead body whose 
property is to be always descending, and that the heavy 
dead body is unable to become light [as opposed to heavy], 



and the light living body is unable to become a heavy dead 

In his fifth heresy he contended that all animals were of 
one species, because they all agree in having the same per- 
ceptive powers. Thus he claimed that when acts agree, it is 
a proof that what caused them are in agreement. He claimed 
also that two different things would not come from one and 
the same species ; just as fire does not give out both heat and 
cold, nor snow give out both heat and cold. This in truth 
is the view of the Dualists, that light does good and not 
harm, and darkness does evil and no good comes from it; 
because one author cannot perform two different acts, just 
as heat and cold do not both come forth from fire, nor from 
snow. The strange thing is that he compiled a book against 
the Dualists in which he pointed out to them the impossi- 
bility of mingling light and darkness if they belong to dif- 
ferent species and actions and had movements in different 
directions. In spite of this view, he claimed that light and 
heavy bodies (soul and body), though different in species 
and in the direction of their motion, penetrate each other in 
the same space. But the penetration which he asserts is 
worse than mingling, which the Dualists hold, and which 
he disputed. 

His sixth heresy is his view that it is the nature of fire to 
surmount everything. If, therefore, it is released from the 
121 filth that holds it in this world, it rises until it goes beyond 
heaven and the Throne, unless some other of its species 
unites with it, in which case it does not rise. Of the soul 
he said the same thing, that when it is separated from the 
body, it rises, and a change takes place in it. This is similar 
to the view of the Dualists that the parts of light which 
mingle with the parts of darkness, when they separate from 
the latter, rise to the world of light, and when the light be- 
comes permanent above the heavens, the souls unite with it. 



He is, therefore, a Dualist. If he affirms the existence of 
lire above the atmosphere, with which the rising fires in the 
atmosphere combine, he is one of the Naturalists, who claim 
that air in rising, is at a distance from the earth of sixteen 
miles, above which is fire which reaches the sphere of the 
moon, and with which the rising flames of fire unite. Al- 
Nazzam is therefore either a Dualist or a Naturalist, con- 
cealing himself among the mass of the Moslems. 

His seventh heresy is his view that the actions of animals 
are all of one species, and are composed of motion and 
quiescence. Quiescence, according to him, is limited motion. 
Moreover, he considers knowledge and will motion, and 
hence accidentals. All accidentals, according to him, are of 
one species — all motion. As to color, taste, sound, and 
senses, these, according to him, are different permeating 
material things. The result of this view of his, that the acts 
of animals are of one species, is necessarily that belief is 
like unbelief and knowledge like ignorance, and love like 
hatred. Furthermore, it follows that the acts of the prophet 
toward believers are like the acts of Satan toward unbeliev- 
ers, and that the invitation of the prophet to the people to 122 
join the religion of Allah is like the invitation of Satan to 
go astray. In some of the books he has gone so far as to say 
that all these acts are of one species, differing only in their 
name, because of the differences of their order, they being 
of one species because they are all acts of animals. Accord- 
ing to him, one animal cannot perform two different acts, just 
as fire can not make cold and hot. According to this, al-Naz- 
zam cannot get angry with anyone who scolds or courses him, 
because the sentiment of the author who said, " May Allah 
curse al-Nazzam," according to al-Nazzam, is just the same 
as if he had said, " May Allah bless al-Nazzam." Further- 
more, a child born of adultery is the same as a legal child. 
If he himself is satisfied with such a doctrine he is worthy 
of it, and of the views that necessarily follow. 



His eighth heresy is the view that color, taste, smell, 
sound and sense are bodies, and that many bodies can per- 
meate one and the same space. He refuses the view of 
Hisham ibn-al-Hakam that knowledge and will and motion 
are bodies, saying that if these three were objects they 
could not unite in one thing, nor in one body. And yet he 
holds that color, taste and sound are bodies permeating each 
other in the same space ; in answering his opponent he con- 
futes himself. He who maintains that bodies permeate 
each other in the same space must admit the possibility of a 
camel passing through the eye of a needle ! 
123 His ninth heresy is his view concerning sound. He claims 
that there are not two men on the earth who have heard 
the same sound, except in the sense that it (the sound) is 
of the same species of sounds, just as two men eat one 
species of food, even if that which one of them eats is not 
what the other eats. This view developed from his claim 
that a sound is heard only as it follows into the spirit on 
the path of hearing. It is not possible, however, to flow 
from the same object into two different organs of hearing. 
He compared this with water which is sprinkled on a crowd 
of people, each one being sprinkled with different water. 
According to this assumption it must necessarily follow that 
no one has heard the same word from Allah, nor from his 
prophet, because what each one of all the hearers hears is a 
part of the sound of the word of the speaker. The word as 
a whole may perhaps consist of two letters, so that accord- 
ing to him one of them is not the word. If he then claims 
that the sound is not a word nor is it heard except when it 
consists of several letters, it follows that a group of people 
cannot hear just one letter, for one letter cannot divide itself 
into several letters according to the number of hearers ! 

His tenth heresy is his view concerning the divisibility of 
every particle ad infinitum. This idea implies the absurd 



view that Allah does not include the whole of the world by 
knowing- about it, yet the following is the word of Allah : 
"And taketh count of all things by number" (Surah 72, 
v. 28 ) . One of his peculiarities is that he denies the view 
of the Manicheans to the effect that Ahriman, who is the 
spirit of darkness, passed through the abodes of darkness, 124 
carrying out the worst possible evil until he saw light. In 
connection with this al-Nazzam said to them : " If the 
abodes of darkness stretch downward without limit, then 
how can Ahriman pass through them? For to pass through 
what has no end is impossible." Although denying this, he 
nevertheless claimed that when the soul separated f rom the 
body, it passed through the upper world, in spite of the fact 
that he maintained that the space in the upper worlds 
through which the spirit passes is infinite in its parts, while 
each part in its turn is infinite in its part. If this is the 
case, how can the spirit traverse them in limited time ? It 
was to make this possible that he adopted the doctrine of 
the leap, a doctrine which had never been held by any phil- 
osophers before him. Stranger than that, he drew from 
the Dualists the conclusion that light and darkness are finite 
in everyone of the six directions. What led him to this 
way of thinking was that they held that both light and dark- 
ness were finite in the direction in which they met. Accord- 
ing to this, was he trying to show that everybody has finite 
parts in the center because it is finite on all sides ? If, how- 
ever, the finiteness of the body in its six directions does not 
incur finiteness in its center (according to him), he is then 
not disagreeing with the Dualists in their view that all light 
and darkness are finite on the side at which they meet. One 
must not, however, conclude that they are finite on all other 

Al-Nazzam's eleventh heresy is the doctrine of the leap. 
He says that a body which is in a given place, may pass from 



that place to a third place or a tenth without necessarily 
traversing the places which separate the first and the tenth, 
nor by being annihilated in the first to be resuscitated in the 
tenth. If al-Nazzam is just, we will refer this case to him 
to declare its fallacy, although we believe that after the 
(famous) arbitration of abu-Musa al-Ash'ari and 'Amr 
ibn-al-Asi any arbitration is nonsense. 

His twelfth heresy was so horrible that the heavens were 
almost rent asunder by it. It is the view that no informa- 
tion about Allah, or his prophet, or his worshippers, can be 
accepted as true. Furthermore, that bodies and colors can 
not be known simply by information about them. What 
drove him to this accursed view was his other belief that 
there are two kinds of known things, that which is percep- 
tible and that which is not perceptible. The perceptible are 
bodies about which knowledge can be acquired only through 
the senses. According to him, the senses can perceive only 
that which is body; color, taste, smell and sound being, ac- 
cording to him, bodies. It is because of this that they are 
reached by the senses. As to the imperceptible, it also is of 
two kinds, the eternal and the accidental. They way to know 
the two is not through information, but only through syllo- 
gism and intuition, and therefore neither through the senses 
nor information. He was asked in this connection how he 
knew that Muhammad, as well as the rest of the prophets 
and the kings, were on the earth, since nothing can be known 
through information. His answer was that those who actu- 
ally saw the prophet, in the act of seeing him took from him 
a particle which they divided among themselves, and united 
with their souls. When later they reported his existence to 
their descendants, some of this particle left them and joined 
the souls of the descendants. The descendants, therefore, 
know the prophet because a particle from the prophet has 
126 joined with their soul. This continues as each report is 



passed on to the succeeding generation down to our own 
time. The objection made to this was that Jews, Christians, 
Magians and heretics know that our prophet was on earth. 
Does al-Nazzam then think that a particle has passed from 
him into the spirit of the unbelievers ? This is a necessary 
conclusion. He claimed, furthermore, that when the people 
of paradise have intercourse with the people of hell, and the 
people of hell see them, and the two converse with each 
other, particles of each become exchanged. In this way 
particles of the bodies and spirits of the people of hell enter 
paradise, while particles of the bodies and spirits of the 
people of paradise enter hell. And there is enough shame 
on him for having dealt with this heresy. 

Al-Nazzam's thirteenth heresy is reported by al-Jahiz, 
and is to the effect that forms and bodies renew themselves 
as they pass from one condition to another, and moreover 
that Allah creates this world and that which is in it without 
first annihilating it and then resuscitating it. Abu-al-Husain 
al-Khaiyat says in his book against abu-al-Ruwandi that 
al-Jahiz made a mistake in his report about this view of 
al-Nazzam. Now it might be said to al-Khaiyat, " If 
al-Jahiz were right in his report, you should accept it as a 
sign of al-Nazzam's foolishness and mental aberration ; but 
if he lied about him, then you should accept it as a sign of 
the shamelessness of al-Jahiz and his idiocy." And this was 
the sheikh of the Mu'tazilah and their philosopher ! Since 
the Mu'tazilah lied about their Lord and their Prophet, we 
cannot deny that they lied about their ancestors. 

His fourteenth heresy is his view that Allah created man l2 7 
and four-footed beasts and the rest of the animals, and all 
kinds of plants, and the forms of minerals all at once; and 
that he did not create Adam before creating his children, 
nor did he create the mothers before creating their children. 
He claimed that Allah created all these at one time, but that 



certain things are more numerous than others. So that the 
question of priority and sequence is merely one of appear- 
ance and place. By this view he condemns as a lie every- 
thing that has been agreed upon by the ancestors of the 
Believers, as well as the people of the Book, whether Jews, 
Christians or Samaritans. The view of all these being that 
Allah created the tablet and the pen before the creation of 
the heavens and the earth. As to the Moslems, the only 
thing over which they differ is whether heaven or the earth 
was created first. Al-Nazzam differs from the Moslems and 
the people of the Book, as well as from most of the Mu'ta- 
zilah, because the Basrah Mu'tazilah claimed that Allah 
created his will before creating the thing willed ; while the 
rest of them assert that some bodies in the world were 
created before others. Abu-al-Hudhail claimed that he 
created his word to the thing " but not in a place " before he 
created bodies and accidents. Al-Nazzam's view about what 
is manifest in bodies and what is hidden, as well as their 
permeation, is worse than the view of the Zahiriyah who 
claimed that all accidents are hidden in bodies. The char- 
acteristics of the bodies, however, are ascribed to them by 
the manifestation of certain accidents, and the hiding of 
I2 ^ others. In both doctrines, there is a turning away from the 
Duhnyah (Dahrite?) view to the denial of the finite char- 
acter of bodies and accidents ; for they assert that all these 
exist in every condition, provided some are hidden and 
others manifest, although nothing may have appeared in the 
condition of manifestation. All this is heresy and unbelief; 
and in fact everything that leads to error is like it. 

His fifteenth heresy is that the composition of the Koran, 
and the beauty of the literary arrangement of its words, do 
not show the miraculous character of its Prophet; nor are 
they a proof of the reliability of his claim to prophecy. The 
basis for the proof of his reliability lies only in what the 



Koran contains regarding the manifestation of unknown 
things. As to the composition of the Koran, and the beauty 
of the literary arrangements of its verses, verily the wor- 
shippers are capable of the same, and even of what is more 
beautiful than this, in composition and literary arrangement. 
But this view is in opposition to the words of Allah : "Were 
men and jinn assembled to produce the like of this Koran, 
they could not produce its like, though the one should help 
the other " (Surah 17, v. 90). In denying the miraculous 
character of the Koran, he is denying the prophecy of the 
man who defied the Arabs to produce anything like it. 

His sixteenth heresy is his view that a report may be a 
lie, even though the number of the transmitters may surpass 
the prescribed limits, and even though the aims of those 
who transmit it and their motives may differ. He asserts 
this, together with the view, that a report may, on the other 
hand, be true, even though only a few may have handed it 
down. Our followers haye condemned him, as well as 129 
those of the Mu'tazilah who agree with him in this doctrine 
which he adopted. 

His seventeenth heresy is as follows : the agreement of 
the Moslem community of each century, as well as that of 
all centuries combined (as regards opinion and inference) 
may be an error. From this fact he was bound to conclude 
that nothing upon which the community have agreed can be 
trusted, because, according to him, there is always a possi- 
bility of their agreeing on an error. Since some of the reg- 
ulations of the law have been taken by Moslems from re- 
ports that had been handed down, others from single re- 
ports, others from things upon which the community had 
agreed, deducing them by analogy and inference; and 
since al-Nazzam disbelieves in the evidence drawn from 
what has been handed down, as well as from agreement and 
analogy, and also rejects a single report, unless the knowl- 



edge it gives is unmistakable, he is putting himself in a 
position to reject the divine regulations of the law, by re- 
jecting its methods. 

His eighteenth heresy comes under the head of threats. 
He claims that the man who takes by force, or steals one hun- 
dred and ninety-nine dirhams only, did not commit a crime. 
In fact, he is not to blame, until what he has taken by force 
or stolen, and about which he has acted treacherously, 
amounts to two hundred dirhams and over. If he has based 
this view on the amount of a theft for which the penalty is 
the amputation of the hand, he is wrong, for there is no one 
who would limit that punishment to two hundred dirhams. 
On the contrary, such a punishment is considered by most 
people to be necessary for the theft of even a quarter of a 
dinar, or its value. With this view al-Shafi'i and his follow- 
ers agree. Malik said it should be inflicted for a quarter of 
a dinar or three dirhams. Abu-Hanlfah said amputation 
should be inflicted for ten dirhams and more, while others 
said it should be inflicted for forty dirhams, or their value. 
130 The Ibadiyah considered amputation necessary for small as 
well as big thefts, no one limiting the punishment to two 
hundred dirhams. If the fact of guilt, deserving of ampu- 
tation, is authenticated by the thief himself, even the rob- 
bery of thousands of dinars will not be a transgression, be- 
cause amputation is not inflicted on one who takes by force, 
and then confesses. It follows, moreover, that he who 
steals the thousands that are not guarded or that belong to 
his own son, is not guilty, because no decision is to be 
found about these two cases [the case of one who confesses, 
and one who steals unguarded thousands]. If, however, 
al-Nazzam has based his limitation of the punishment to 
two hundred on the fact that the two hundred is the amount 
given for alms, he must then condemn the man who steals 
forty sheep, the number necessary for the offering to be 



considered alms, even if its value was below two hundred 
dirhams. If analogy has no place in this definition of his 
and there is no reference to it in the Koran, or the true 
tradition, then his definition comes only as the whisper of 
Satan who invites him to error. 

His nineteenth heresy is his view that faith is the avoid- 
ing of major sins. The result of this view was that he re- 
garded words and deeds as in no way faith. Furthermore, 
prayer, as regards its performance, is neither faith nor 
drawn from faith; for faith is the forsaking of major sins. 
At the same time he held that both the acts and their for- 
saking are virtue. As to this, men before him were divided, 
some saying that all prayer was faith, and others that noth- 
ing in prayer was faith. Al-Nazzam differed from both of 
these groups, however, claiming that whereas prayer is not 
faith, the forsaking of major sins is. 

His twentieth heresy comes under the head of the future 131 
life. It was his view that scorpions, snakes, beetles, bees, 
flies, scarabs, dogs and swine, as well as the rest of the ani- 
mals and insects, enter heaven. He claimed also that every- 
one and everything that Allah judges worthy of heaven is 
not necessarily of a different grade of precedence. Accord- 
ingly he claimed that Abraham the son of the prophet of 
Allah could not in heaven have precedence over the children 
of the faithful. Nor do the children of the faithful in 
heaven differ in degree, pleasure or grade from the snakes, 
scorpions and beetles, because there is no work for the latter 
just as there is no work for the former. Thus he limits the 
Lord of the worlds from making a difference for the chil- 
dren of the prophets, by giving them more pleasure than he 
bestows on the insects. Al-Nazzam did not even stop here, 
but went on to say that the Lord of the worlds did not even 
have the power to do this. Moreover, he claimed that Allah 
bestowed on the prophets only that which he bestowed on 



the animals, because, according to his view of precedence, 
there is no difference made between those who are wise and 
those who are not, for these differ only as to reward and 
punishment, according to the worth of their works. Hold- 
ing such a view as this, al-Nazzam cannot get angry at any 
one who says to him : " May Allah resuscitate you with dogs 
and swine and snakes and scorpions in their quarters." 
And our wish for him is that he may remain in the condi- 
tion to which this prayer consigns him. 

His twenty-first heresy appeared when he brought for- 
ward his view about mental sciences. He introduced these 
132 same errors, which had never been heard of before, into the 
dominion of religious law. His view was that divorce en- 
forced by any of the following formulae was not legal ; e. g. 
the word of the husband to his wife : " Thou art free, or 
liberated, or thou art free to go thy way, or follow thy 
people, or depart," or any other divorce formulae accepted 
by the Canonists, whether he intends divorce or not. The 
Canonists agree that such formulae constitute a divorce, pro- 
vided there is intention of divorce. The lawyers of al-Trak 
hold that even if used only in anger, the formula for divorce 
is equivalent to the declaration of divorce even if no inten- 
tion is present. 

Another of al-Nazzam's errors is about separation, for 
he says that to have a husband say, " You are to me like 
the back of my mother," means divorce ; whereas if he uses 
the word belly or generative organs, instead of back, it is not 
a divorce. This differs entirely from the customary view 
of the community. He also condemned abu-Musa al-Ash'ari 
for his decision. 

Furthermore, al-Nazzam brought forward his view that 
sleep does not destroy the purity of ablutions, unless there 
is excrement. This is contrary to the view of the majority 
of the leaders, who believed that sleep lying flat destroys 



purification, and who differ only about sleep taken in a sit- 
ting, kneeling, or bent position. Abu-Hamfah held that it 
is permissible, while most of the followers of al-Shafi'i de- 
nied it by the process of analogy. 

Another of his errors was that he claimed that he who 
intentionally neglects a prescribed prayer, will receive no 
merit for fulfilling it, nor is its fulfilment obligatory for 
him. To the rest of the community, this was a heresy 
similar to the one which claimed that the five prayers are 
not prescribed. Some of the religious lawyers of the com- 
munity say that if a man neglects a prescribed prayer, he 
must perform the prayers of one night and one day. Sa'id 
ibn-al-Musaiyab said: " He who forsakes a prescribed 133 
prayer so that the time for it is passed, must perform a 
thousand prayers (to make tip)." The place of prayer has 
been so dignified by some religious lawyers, e. g. Ahmad 
ibn-Hanbal, that they condemn as an infidel any man who 
forsakes it intentionally, though he may not consider its 
negligence lawful. Al-ShafYi held that a man who neglected 
prayer intentionally should be executed; although he did 
not condemn as a heretic the man who neglected it out of 
laziness but not if he considered it illegal. Abu-Hamfah, 
on the other hand, decreed imprisonment for the neglect of 
prayer, accompanied by torture, until the man prayed. Al- 
Nazzam's disagreement with the community over the obli- 
gation of performing neglected prescribed prayers, is sim- 
ilar to the disagreement of the infidels (zanadikah) over 
the obligation of any prayer. Both disagreements are not 
to have consideration. 

In addition to the heresies which we have recounted, al- 
Nazzam has attacked the reports of the Companions and 
the Disciples because of their interpretation of the Koran. 
Al-Jahiz alluded to him in his work entitled Knowledge 
(al-Maf&rif), and in his book known as Opinion (Futya), 



saying that he blamed the traditionalists because they handed 
down traditions of abu-Hurairah. 1 He claimed that abu- 
Hurairah was the worst of liars, and he attacked 'Umar al- 
Faruk. 2 In fact, he claimed that Faruk was in doubt about 
his own faith at the battle of al-Hudaibiyah as well as on the 
day of the death of the Prophet. He was also with those 
who were angry with the Prophet on the night of the 'Aka- 
bah, 3 and he struck Fatimah and . . . (not clear in text). 
Furthermore, he criticized 'Umar for sending Nasr ibn-al- 
Hajjaj from al-Madmah to al-Basrah. And he claimed that 
'Umar introduced genuflections in prayer, and forbade tem- 
porary marriage [mufah] during pilgrimage, and the mar- 
riage of a freedman to an Arab woman. He blamed 
'Uthman for sending al-Hakam ibn-al-'Asi 4 to al-Madinah 
and for making al-Walid ibn-'Ukbah 5 his governor over 
al-Kufah. Al-Walid was the man who led the prayer when 
he was drunk. 
134 He also blamed 'Uthman for helping Sa'id ibn-al-'Asi 
with forty thousand dirhams for his marriage contract. 
Moreover, he accused him of claiming for himself the pos- 
session of the land belonging to the Moslem community 

He then mentioned 'All, claiming that when asked about 
a cow that had killed a donkey, he said : " I judge this 
according to my opinion." In this he expressed his ignor- 

1 Tabari ed. Zotenberg, vol. iii, pp. 466, 703 et scq. 

2 By-name given to 'Umar the caliph. 

z 'Akabah. Ibn-Hisham, Biography, p. 288. The night on which alle- 
giance was sworn to the Prophet. Margoliouth, Mohammed, pp. 202, 204. 

4 Mistake in Baghdadl. Instead of Hakam ibn-al-'Asi, it should be 
al-Hakam ibn-abi-al-'AsI. Cf. Ibn-Hajar, vol. i, p. 709 where this very- 
incident is mentioned. 

5 Ibn-Hajar, vol. iii, p. 1312. Tabari, ibid., vol. iii, p. 566. 
9 Ibid., p. 566 et seq. 



ance, for who is he that he should judge according to his 
opinion ? 

He also attacked abu-Mas'ud * for his view about the 
tradition which relates to the marriage of the daughter of 
JVashtif. 2 [For he claimed] " I judge according to my 
own opinion, and if it is a correct judgment, then it is from 
Allah, but if it is a mistaken one, then it is from me." In 
addition he contended that abu-Mas'ud was lying when he 
stated that the Prophet had said : " He is happy who re- 
joices in the womb of his mother, and he is unhappy who is 
unhappy in the womb of his mother." Al-Nazzam also 
considered him a liar in his report of the " splitting of the 
moon," and in his report about the Jinns of the " night of 
the Jinn." Such was the view of al-Nazzam with regard 
to the report of the Companions and of the people of the 
abode of paradise, of whom Allah said : " Well pleased 
now hath God been with the believers when they plighted 
fealty to thee under the tree " (Surah 48, v. 18). He who 
gets angry with those whom Allah blesses, he incurs anger 
rather than they. He then said in his book that those of 
the Companions who believed in analogy either are of opin- 
ion that this is legal for them and ignore that it is forbidden 
to judge by analogy according to decisions directed against 
them, or else wish to be remembered as disagreeing, and thus 
be leaders of sects. Because of this [latter difficulty] they 
chose to accept analogy [as legal] . Al-Nazzam thus attrib- 
uted to them the preference of desire to religion. [For they 
deliberately chose the view that cast the least reflection on 
them.] The only crime of the followers, then, according to 
this hideous infidel, is that they were unitarians, who did not 
hold the heresy of the Kadariyah who reckoned numerous 135 

1 Nawawi, p. 757, under 'Ukbah ibn-'Amr. Tabari, ibid., vol. ii, p. 439 ; 
vol. iii, p. 36. 

2 None of the more important historians mention this man. 



other creators with Allah. He rejects the tradition of abu- 
Mas'ud, that he is happy who is happy in his mother's womb, 
and he is unhappy who is unhappy in his mother's womb, 
only because this differs from the view of the Kadariyah 
who assert that neither happiness nor misery come from the 
decree of Allah or through his predestination. Al-Nazzam's 
denial of the " splitting of the moon " is due to his unwill- 
ingness to ascribe any miracle to our Prophet, just as he de- 
nies any miracle in connection with the composition of the 
Koran. If he considers the " splitting of the moon " im- 
possible, although it is mentioned by Allah in the Koran, 
then, according to what he says of the processes of the mind, 
he is forced to conclude that he who combined the parts of 
the moon is unable to separate them. If, however, he ac- 
cepted the " splitting of the moon" as lying within the range 
of ability and possibility, then what is it that made him 
accuse abu-Mas'ud of being a liar, in his report of the "split- 
ting of the moon," although Allah mentioned it in the 
Koran : " The hour hath approached and the Moon hath 
been cleft; But whenever they see a miracle they turn aside 
and say, ' This is well-devised magic ' " (Surah 54, v. 1 and 
2 ) . Al-Nazzam's assertion that the "splitting of the moon " 
never took place, is worse than the view of the polytheists 
who hold that even when they saw it splitting, it took place 
by magic. He who denies the existence of prophetic mir- 
acles is worse than he who attempts to explain them in some 
other way. As to his denial of vision to the Jinn, he must 
verily conclude that the Jinn cannot see each other. If, how- 
ever, he accepts their ability to see, why does he say that 
abu-Mas'ud is lying when he claims that they can see. Ac- 
cording to all this, al-Nazzam in addition to what we have 
reported of his error was the most corrupt of the creations 
of Allah, the boldest in committing major sins, and the most 
136 addicted to drinking spirits. 'Abdallah ibn-Muslim-ibn- 



Kutaibah x has mentioned in his book entitled " The Dif- 
ference of Tradition," that al-Nazzam drank spirits in the 
morning and the evening, singing the following verses 
about drink : 

« I do not cease taking the spirit of the flagon in gentleness 
And consider it legal to drink the blood of the unslain. 
Thus I was revived and felt two spirits in my body, 
While the flagon lay a body without a spirit." 

In his attack on his report of the Companions, in the heresy 
of his views, and in the errors of his acts, his case is like 
that of the man about whom the following proverb is told : 
He who has a bad faith and is mean in his descent, does not 
leave a shameful act without committing it, considering it 
praiseworthy and permissible though it be forbidden. But 
are the clouds harmed by the barking of the dogs ? Just as 
the clouds are not harmed by the barking of the dogs, so 
such a man does no harm. 

(Here the writing breaks off, at the end of the folio 
58b, and from the following it appears that several pages 
are lost, and that the author is now talking of Mu'ammar.) 2 
...... the phenomena of the body came from the acts 

of the body according to its nature. According to him, 
sound is the act of bodies that are sonorous by nature. The 
annihilation of a body is the act of the body from its nature. 
\nd the healthy or unhealthy condition of seed is, accord- 
ing to him, due to the acts of the seed. He also claimed 
that the annihilation of a finite thing is due to its own act 
from its nature. He claims, moreover, that in the case of 
phenomena, Allah has neither action nor power. And 137 
holding this view that Allah creates neither life nor death, 
he condemns as false Allah's describing himself as one who 

1 Ibn-Khallikan, ibid., vol. ii, p. 22. 

■ Mu'ammar ibn-'Abbad al-Sulami. Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 67 
ct seq. Horten, ibid., p. 274 et seq. Macdonald, tbid., p. H3- 



gives life or causes death, for how can he who created 
neither life nor death give life or death? 

His second heresy is his idea that Allah created no phe- 
nomena whatever. He at the same time denied the eternal 
attributes of Allah, just as the rest of the Mu'tazilah de- 
nied them. This heresy forced him to the conclusion that 
Allah has no word, since he could not state that Allah's 
word was an eternal attribute, as the Sumiites and the com- 
munity did, for he did not ascribe to Allah any eternal 
attribute. Nor could he say that his word was his act, as 
the rest of the Mu'tazilah held, because Allah, according to 
him, had not created any phenomena. The Koran, accord- 
ing to him, was the act of a body upon which the words 
descended, but is not an act of Allah, nor an attribute. 
Thus it is not possible for him to actually have a word, 
either in the sense of an attribute, or in the sense of an act. 
If he then has no word, he has no power to command, to 
forbid, nor to impose obligation. This involves a denial 
of divine obligation, and of the provisions of the Canon 
Law and of what others have affirmed, because he held 
opinions leading thereto. 

His third heresy was his assertion that every kind of 
phenomena existing in the body is endless in number. So 
138 he said if a thing moves through a motion arising in itself, 
this motion belongs to its bearer for the sake of (through) 
an idea outside of itself. This idea, again, belongs to its 
bearer for the sake of (through) an idea outside of itself. 
Thus he speaks of every idea belonging to its bearer for 
the sake of (through) an idea outside of it ad infinitum. 
Thus color, taste and smell — as well as any other phenom- 
ena — belongs to its bearer through an idea outside of itself. 
This idea again belongs to its bearer through an idea out- 
side of itself ad infinitum. Al-Ka'bi, in his treatises, relates 
how al-Mu'ammar claimed that motion is opposed to rest 



only through an idea outside of it. In the same way rest is 
opposed to motion through an idea outside of it, and these 
two ideas are opposed to ideas other than they. This series, 
according to him, may be followed ad infinitum. 

Now such a view is heretical for two reasons. One is 
that he posits accidents that are unlimited, which neces- 
sitates the positing of accidents which Allah cannot count— 
which is directly opposed to Allah's saying, " And count- 
eth all things by number " (Surah 72, v. 28). The second 
reason is that his saying that an unlimited number of 
phenomena have been created leads him to hold that the 
body is more powerful than Allah. For, according to him, 
Allah has created nothing but bodies, which are finite, as 
both we and he hold. Now, when the body creates a phe- 
nomenon, it has in that connection created phenomena that 
are unlimited. And naturally that which creates what is 
unlimited must be more powerful than that which can only 
create what is limited in number. In his treatises al-Ka'bi 
tries to excuse al-Mu'ammar, asserting that he was accus- 
tomed to say that man has no power of action outside of his 
will, the rest of the phenomena being the work of the body 
acting according to its nature. If this report of his views 
is correct, it necessarily follows that the nature, to which is 
ascribed the creation of the phenomena, is more powerful 
than Allah, for Allah produces only bodies that are limited, 139 
while the nature of man produces various kinds of phenom- 
ena, every one of which kind is endless in number. 

It ought further to be said that the view of al-Mu'ammar 
in regard to endless phenomena opens the way for those 
who held the doctrines of suhur (appearance) and kutnun 
(masking) against that of the [orthodox] Moslems in re- 
gard to the creation of phenomena. For the [orthodox] 
Moslems inferred the creation of the phenomena in bodies 
from the fact that opposing phenomena may succeed one 



another in bodies. But the followers of zuhiir and kumun 
denied the creation of phenomena and believed that they 
were inherent in bodies, and that whenever one phenomenon 
appeared in a body, its opposite was masked there, and that 
when a phenomenon was masked there, its opposite appeared. 
The Mukassidun said to them : " If a phenomenon is masked 
once and appears once, its appearance after its masking and 
its masking after its appearance would be due to an idea 
outside of it; and if not, this idea in its appearing and its 
masking would need an endless idea outside of it. But since 
the combination of endless phenomena in one body is impos- 
sible, their succession in a body through being created is 
proved, and not through successive masking and appearing. 
If, now, Mu'ammar says that the combination of unlimited 
phenomena in a body is possible, he cannot refute the claim 
of the followers of appearance and masking, that it is pos- 
sible for endless phenomena of the kind called appearance 
and masking to be in one and the same place." This view 
carried to its legitimate conclusion leads to the assertion 
that phenomena are eternal — which is a heresy. And that 
which leads to such a theory must also be heresy. 
I 4° His fourth heresy is his theory that man is something 
beside this sensible body, that he is living, knowing, able to 
act and possesses free will. But he claims that it is not 
man himself who moves, or keeps quiet, or is colored, or 
sees, or touches, or changes from place to place, nor does 
one place contain him to the exclusion of another. If he 
were asked, " Do you say that man is in this body, or in the 
sky, or in the earth, or in paradise, or in hell?", he would 
answer, "I do not deny any of this, but I assert that he is 
in the body as something led, in paradise as something given 
delight, or in hell as something given punishment; he is, 
however, neither present nor contained in any one of these 
places, because he has neither length, breadth, depth, nor 



weight." He thus ascribes attributes to man which are 
ascribed to Allah, in that he says that man is living and 
knowing and able to act and wise, attributes which must 
necessarily be applied to Allah. Then he denies that man 
can move, or be at rest, or be hot, or cold, or wet, or dry, 
that he possesses color, or weight, or taste, or smell. Allah 
also is free from such attributes. And just as he claims 
that man, when in the body, is its manager, but is not there 
in the sense of being present or contained, so, according to 
him, Allah is in every place, in the sense that he is managing 
it, and knowing what is happening in it, but not in the sense 
of being present or contained in it. It is almost as if by 
describing man as Allah is described, he wishes him to be 
worshipped. He did not, however, think it meet to express 
quite this opinion, so he merely said something that would 
naturally lead to it. Moreover, this view entails the idea 
that it is impossible for man to see man, and therefore it fol- 141 
lows that the Companions did not see the Prophet of Allah, 
a view which is in itself sufficiently shameful. 

His fifth heresy was his view that it is not proper to say 
of Allah that he is ancient, and yet at the same time de- 
scribing him as existent and eternal. 

His sixth heresy was his refusal to say that Allah knows 
himself, because he considers it essential for the thing known 
to be separate from the thing knowing. This view of his, 
however, is proved false by the fact that a speaker may 
mention himself, because if it is possible for his own self 
to be mentioned by a speaker, it is also possible for a knower 
to know his own self. Al-Ka'bi boasted in his writings to 
the effect that Mu'ammar was one of his Mu'tazilah teach- 
ers. Now anyone who boasts of his likeness to the like of 
him can keep it, just as the poet has said : 

" Is there any buyer as long as Sa'id is the seller? 
Is there any seller as long as Sa'id is the buyer ? " 


6. Concerning the Bishriyah among them. These are the 
followers of Bishr ibn-al-Mu'tamir. 1 Some of his brother 
Kadarlyah condemned his views on certain points in which 
he is considered right by other Kadarlyah. For instance, 
they condemned his view that Allah was capable of so much 
kindness that if he showed it to an infidel, it would make 
that infidel involuntarily a believer. They also condemned 
his view that if Allah had first created the wise in paradise, 
thus favoring them, it would have been better for them. 
They also condemned his view that if Allah should know 
that by lengthening the life of a man, that slave would be- 
come a believer, then to lengthen his life would be better 
for him than to have him die a heretic. Moreover, they 
142 condemned his view that Allah does not cease desiring; and 
also his view that if Allah knows that a certain act is to be 
committed by a man and does not forbid it, then he has de- 
sired its occurrence. In these five views which the Basrah 
Mu'tazilah condemned, Bishr was right while in reality 
those who condemned him were themselves worthy of con- 
demnation. All the other matters, however, are hateful 
heresies, and we condemn Bishr as an unbeliever. First of 
all, we condemn his view that Allah is not a friend to the 
believer in the state of his belief, nor an enemy to an un- 
believer in the state of his unbelief. It was necessary to 
condemn him for this, since it is contrary to the view of all 
Moslems as well as our immediate followers ; for we say that 
Allah does not cease being a friend to him whom he knows 
to have been his friend, while he was alive ; and an enemy to 
him whom he knows to have been an unbeliever during his 
life and to have died in his unbelief. He is therefore his 
enemy before his unbelief, in the state of his unbelief, and 
after his death. As to these main points, the Mu'tazilah, all 
except Bishr, held that Allah is not a friend to a man before 

1 See note on page 134. 



the existence of obedience in him was possible ; it is only in 
the state of obedience that he becomes his friend. In the 
same way he is an enemy to the unbeliever only in the state 
of his unbelief; moreover, if the believer returned to his un- 
belief, Allah becomes his enemy after having been his friend, 
according to them. Bishr, however, claimed that Allah is 
not the friend of the obedient in the state of the existence 
of his obedience, nor an enemy to the unbeliever in the state 
of the existence of his unbelief. He is only friendly to the 
obedient in the second state where obedience exists, 1 and he 
is the enemy of the unbeliever only in the second state where 
his unbelief exists. He gave as proof of this, that if it is 
right that Allah should be a friend to the obedient [only] 143 
in the state of his obedience, and an enemy to him [only] in 
the state of his unbelief, then it is right to reward the obe- 
dient in the state of his obedience, and to punish the unbe- 
liever in the state of his unbelief. But our followers say : 
"If Allah does so, it is right." Bishr, however, said that 
if this [conclusion] is right, then it must follow that the 
unbeliever can be transformed in his state of unbelief. We 
say that if Allah does so, it is right. 

The second of Bishr's heresies is the fact that he exag- 
gerated his view about reproduction to such an extent that 
he claimed it possible for a man to create color and taste 
and smell and sight and hearing and the rest of the sensa- 
tions according to the method of reproduction, provided he 
is the author of that which causes them. The same is true 
of his view of heat and cold, wetness and dryness. Our 
own followers and the rest of the Mu'tazilah declared him 
a heretic, because of his assertion that man can create color, 
taste, smell and the sensations. 

His third heresy is his theory that Allah may forgive a 

1 i. e. he is not his friend before he becomes obedient, nor his enemy 
before he becomes disobedient. 



man his sins and then change his mind about such forgive- 
ness and punish him when the man is again disobedient. 
Bishr was questioned about this : " If an unbeliever had 
turned from his unbelief, and drank wine after having re- 
pented from his unbelief, without considering it legal to 
drink wine, and death should seize him before he had re- 
pented from his drinking of wine, would Allah punish him 
on the last day for his unbelief for which he repented ?" He 
said " yes." It was then said to him: ''According to this, 
then, the punishment for such a sin on the part of those who 
are of the Moslem community is like the punishment of the 
unbeliever." And Bishr had to accept this deduction. 
I44 His fourth heresy is his theory that if Allah punished a 
baby, he would be acting unjustly towards it in meting out 
such punishment, for if Allah does this, the baby would 
have to be grown up, sensible, and deserving of pun- 
ishment. This is the same as if he said that Allah has 
power to act unjustly, and if he acts unjustly, then, indeed 
through this injustice he becomes just ! Thus the beginning 
of this theory contradicts the conclusion. Our followers 
say that Allah has the power to punish babies; if he does 
so, his act must be a just one. Their views in this matter 
are not contradictory, but Bishr's view is. 

His fifth heresy is his view that [when a body moves from 
one place to another] motion exists, but not in the body, 
either as it is in the first or the second place ; but that the 
body moves through it from the first to the second place. 
This view is unreasonable in itself. Theologians before him 
disagreed as to whether motion is an " unsubstantial real- 
ity " (ma'na) or not. Those who do not believe in phe- 
nomena said no; while those who believed in phenomena 
differ over the time of the occurrence of motion, some of 
them claiming that it starts in the body when the body is in 
the first place, and the body then passes through it from the 



first to the second place. To this agree al-Nazzam and abu- 
Shimr al-MurjiV Others said that motion exists in the 
body when the latter has reached the second place, because 
it is the first time the body exists in the second place. This 
is the view of abu-al-Hudhail and al-Jubba'i and his son 
abu-Hashim. Our sheikh abu-1-Hasan al-Ash'ari says 
about this : " Some of them say that motion is two sub- 
stances in two [separate] places. One of them occurs in the 
moving body while it is in the first place, the second occurs 
in the body when it is in the second place." This is the view 
of al-Ruwandi 2 and also of our sheikh abu-al-' Abbas al- 
Kalanisl. 3 The view of Bishr ibn-al-Mu'tamar differs from 
these views because he claims that motion takes place while 
the body is neither in the first nor the second place, although 
we know that there is no state between the first and the 
second. If this view is unreasonable even for him, how can 
it be reasonable for others ? 

7. Concerning the Hishamlyah. These are the followers 
of Hisham ibn-'Amr al-Futi. 4 His heresies follow in succes- 
sion his [initial] heresy about predestnation. Among them 
is the fact that he borbids men to say (Surah 3, v. 167) : 
" Our Allah is our sufficiency, and he is our best guardian 
[wakil]" because he does not consider it right to call Allah 
a guardian. But the Koran gives this quality to Allah, and 
it is also mentioned in the Sunnah which has been handed 

1 Muhammad Badr points this abu-Shimr, but no such man is men- 
tioned by the leading writers on these heresies, while ShahrastanI men- 
tions abu-Shdmir, a Murji', vol. i, p. 160 et seq., Horten mentions this 
same man on p. 304. As abu-Shamir was also a pupil of al-Nazzam it 
seems justifiable to conclude that this is the man to whom Baghdad! 
is referring. 

1 Horten, ibid., p. 350 et seq. Ibn-Khallikan, ibid., vol. i, p. 76. 

3 Horten, ibid., p. 375- 

4 ShahrastanI, ibid., vol. i, p. 74- 



down concerning the ninety-nine names of Allah. If this 
name cannot be applied to Allah, in spite of the fact that it 
is written in the Koran, and handed down in the authentic 
Sunnah, then what other names should be applied to him? 
Our followers used to wonder at the Basrah Mu'tazilah who 
applied names to Allah that were not mentioned in the Koran 
and the Sunnah, even if there is analogy for them. Their 
wonder increased still more when al-Futi forbade them to 
apply to Allah those attributes which were mentioned of 
him in the Koran and the Sunnah. 

Al-Khaiyat defended al-Futi by saying that Hisham used 
to say : " Our sufficiency is in Allah, he is the best to depend 
upon [mntawakkal alaihi]" in place of "guardian/' He 
claimed that the word guardian implied someone above 
him (to make him guardian). This, however, is a sign of 
the ignorance of Hisham and of him who defended him by 
146 resorting to the meanings of nouns in the language. The 
word guardian really means " the one who is sufficient," 
because he suffices the one under his guardianship in what 
is given him to guard. This is the meaning of his say- 
ing, " Our sufficiency is in Allah, and he is the best guar- 
dian." And also the meaning of " our sufficiency " is our 
adequacy. It is therefore necessary that what follows the 
word " best " should agree with the word that precedes it, 
as when we say "Allah is our supplier, and he is the best 
supplier," we do not say "Allah is our supplier, and he is 
the best forgiver." Besides, Allah said, " He who depends 
on Allah, Allah is his sufficiency, i. c. his satisfier." Guar- 
dian [wakll] may also mean in the Koran " one in charge 
of us," "Say I am not in charge of you" (Surah 6, v. 
66), i. e. your protector; and the opposite of protector 
would be a stupid man. If guardian means protector, and 
if Allah is a satisfier and a protector, then we should not 
forbid the use of the word guardian among his actual names. 



The remarkable thing is that Hisham permitted this name 
for Allah to be written and read in the Koran. But he did 
not permit its use outside of the Koran. 

The second of al-Futfs heresies is his prohibition of the 
use of many things uttered in the Koran. He also pro- 
hibited men from saying that Allah unites the hearts of be- 
lievers and causes the evil to err. This is in opposition to 
the words of Allah, "Hadst thou spent all the riches of the 
earth, thou couldst not have united their hearts; but Allah 
hath united them" (Surah 8, v. 64), and to his words, "But 
the wicked shall he cause to err" (Surah 14, v. 32), and to 
his words, " But none will he mislead thereby except the 
wicked " (Surah 2, v. 27). Moreover, he rejected the say- 147 
ing in the Koran that Allah blinds the unbelievers. 'Ubad 
ibn-Sulaiman al-'Amri ('Umari?) agreed with this error, 
and forbade men to say that Allah created the unbelievers, 
because the word unbeliever is a name for two things, man 
and his unbelief, but according to him Allah is not the 
creator of his unbelief. On this analogy, it follows that 
one should not say that Allah created the believer, because 
the word believer is a name for two things, man and belief, 
but Allah, according to him, is not the creator of man's be- 
lief. Similarly one should never say, " one has killed an 
unbeliever or has struck him," because the word unbeliever 
refers to both man and his unbelief, and unbelief cannot be 
killed or struck. 'Ubad also rejected the saying that Allah 
" is the third to every two, and the fourth to every three," 
which contradicts the saying of Allah in the Koran : "Three 
persons speak not privately together but he is their fourth, 
nor five but he is their sixth" (Surah 58, v. 8). He also re- 
jected the saying that Allah increases the days of the unbe- 
liever, and this in spite of his word in the Koran : " We only 
give them length of days that they may increase their sins " 
{Surah 3, v. 179). If 'Ubad took this error from his pre- 



ceptor Hisham, it is like the case of 'Asa coming from 
'Aslyah, 1 " the snake gives birth to naught but a snake." 
But if this assertion of his is original, then the student 
would have drawn this from his teacher by analogy, for 
the teacher rejected the word guardian and guarantor from 
among the names of Allah. 
148 The third of al-Fiiti's heresies is his view concerning 
phenomena. He held that nothing in them predicates any- 
thing about Allah. His companion 'Ubad said the same, 
both claiming that the " separation of the sea," and the 
" changing of a stick into a snake," and the " splitting of 
the moon," and the " secret of the twilight," and the 
"walking on the waters" (see above, page 156) do not 
verify the Prophet's claim to prophecy. Al-Futi claims that 
the evidences supposed to come from Allah must be per- 
ceptible, just as bodies are perceptible, and are therefore 
evidences for Allah. They are phenomena which can be 
known through deductive proofs. But if Allah is to be 
made evident by this, these evidences must each have an- 
other evidence to prove them, and so on ad infinitum. It 
was objected that if he held to such an evidence, he would 
have to say that phenomena do not prove anything, nor do 
they even prove a basis for a legal decision ; because if they 
proved a thing or a decision, in proving it they would need 
to prove the truth of the evidence used in bringing such 
proof and each evidence must have another evidence to 
prove it, and so on ad infinitum. And if phenomena prove 
nothing, and give no decision, then the proof of the word 
of Allah and the word of the prophet of Allah about that 
which is legal and that which is illegal, and that which 
is promised and that which is threatened, is abrogated. 
Among phenomena, however, are some whose existence 

1 Muhammad Badr in a footnote says that 'Asa is the name of a horse 
and 'Aslyah is the mother of that horse. 



is known by necessity, such as colors, tastes, smells, motion 
and quiet; it necessarily follows that these known phe- 
nomena are evidence for Allah because they are percep- 
tible, just as bodies are evidence for Allah bcause they 
are perceptible. Now if al-Futi says that phenomena are 
not perceptible, because those who deny phenomena have 149 
doubted their existence, one can say : " The Najjariyah and 
the Darariyah have doubted the existence of the body which 
was not a phenomenon, for they asserted that bodies are a 
conglomerate of phenomena." And arguing from analogy, 
it follows that bodies cannot be known of necessity, and if 
[break in text]. 

His fourth heresy is his view concerning " interruption 
and continuation." He maintained that if a man performs 
the ablutions for prayer and begins praying, thus drawing 
near to Allah with the determination to complete the prayer, 
and then recites and genuflects and prays to Allah in the 
proper manner, but interrupts it before the end, the begin- 
ning of the prayer as well as its end is sin, for Allah has 
forbidden him this, and has prohibited it. Nevertheless he 
has no way of knowing before the beginning that he is 
going to commit a sin and so avoiding it. The community 
before his time, however, agreed that the part of the prayer 
which has been performed is an act of obedience to Allah, 
even though the prayer is not completed, as for example, if 
he died during it, what he had already performed would be 
an act of obedience, even if the whole prayer was not com- 

His fifth heresy is his denial that 'Uthman was besieged 
and was murdered by conquest and force. He claims that a 
small band surprised and killed him without a regular siege. 
And he who rejects the view that 'Uthman was besieged, 
in spite of the successive traditions about it which have 
been handed down, is like him who rejects the battles of 



Badr and 'Uhud, in spite of the successive traditions which 
have been handed down about them. He is also like the 
man who rejects the miracles about which traditions have 
been handed down. 

His sixth heresy is the view which he expresses in the 
chapter on the " Community"; that when the community 
comes to a consensus of opinion, forsaking tyranny and cor- 
ruption, then it needs an Imam to manage it ; and that when 
it rebels and sins and kills its Imam, the Imamship should not 
be fixed upon anyone under these conditions. By that he 
meant to attack the Imamship of 'All, because the Imamship 
was given to him during a rebellion, and after the killing 
of the Imam preceding him. This agreed with the view of 
their al-Asamm, 1 that the Imamship should remain only with 
him upon whom the consensus of the community rested. 
By this view he only wished to attack the Imamship of 'All, 
because the community did not agree about him, for the 
Syrians were championing someone else until 'AH died. 
While rejecting the Imamship of 'AH he accepted that of 
Mu'awiyah, because after the killing of 'All the people were 
unanimous about him. The Rafidah, who inclined to the 
Mu'tazilah views, were thoroughly satisfied with the attack 
of the sheikhs of the Mu'tazilah on the Imamship of 'AH, 
after the doubt of their leader, Wasil, about the testimony 
of 'AH and his followers. 

His seventh heresy is his view that whoever says that 
paradise and hell are created, should be condemned as a 
heretic. His successors among the Mu'tazilah doubt the 
existence of paradise and hell to-day, but they do not con- 
demn the man who says that they are created. Those con- 
vinced of the creation of paradise and hell condemn those 
who deny their existence, and they swear by Allah that he 

7 Horten, ibid., p. 298. 



who denies them will not enter paradise and will not be 
freed from hell. 

His eighth heresy is his denial of the marriage of the 
virgins in paradise. He who denies this is not worthy to 
enter paradise, how much less to marry a virgin there! 
Besides the errors which we have recounted of him, al-Futi 
believes in killing those who differed from him with secret 
cunning, even if they belong to the Moslem community. The 151 
Sunnites said of al-Futi and his followers that their blood 
and their possessions belonged to the Moslems, and that 
they had the usual right to a fifth of the spoils. Nor should 
retaliation be demanded of one who kills one of them nor 
blood-wit nor atonement. Indeed, a certain rank and sta- 
tion is to be awarded to the one killing him, for which 
praise be to Allah. 

8. Concerning the Murddrlyah among them. These are 
the followers of Tsa ibn-Sabih, known as abii-Musa al- 
Murdar. 1 He was called the monk of the Mu'tazilah; the 
surname suited him, though the term was taken from the 
Christian monks. His surname al-Murdar was also well 
suited. In general, the verse may be applied to him: 
" Thine eyes seldom see a man whose appearance does not 
remind you of his surname." 

This Murdar claimed that men had the power to produce 
something similar to the Koran, and even something more 
eloquent, as al-Nazzam had said. But in this way they 
show stubborn opposition to the word of Allah : " Say, 
verily were men and Jinn assembled to produce the like of 
this Koran; they could not produce its like, though the one 
should help the other" (Surah 17, v. 90)- In addition to 
his various errors, al-Murdar condemned the person in 
close communication with a Sultan, claiming that he can 

» Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. jrc, musclar. Horten, ibid., index, p. 642. 



neither inherit nor can he bequeath. His predecessors 
among the Mu'tazilah, who agreed with him as regards fate 
and secession, said of the person holding communication 
with a Sultan, that he was a shameful person, but could not 
be called either a believer or an unbeliever. Murdar, how- 
ever, held that such a person was an unbeliever. It is a 
152 wonder that the Sultan of his time refrained from killing 
him, considering his condemnation of the Sultan himself 
and of those who associated with him. He also claimed 
that Allah could act tyrannically and lie; for if he really 
carried out what he was able to do in the way of tyranny 
and lying, Allah would become a tyrannous and lying God. 
Abu-Zufar reports of al-Murdar that he admitted that a 
deed could exist which was the result of two created doers, 
the deed being created in the way of generation. He held 
this view in spite of the fact that he rejected the opinion of 
the Sunnites that a deed could result from two doers, one 
of them being creator and the other acquirer. Al-Murdar 
also claimed that he who admitted that Allah could be seen 
by the eye though without form, is an unbeliever, while he 
who doubts that such a man is an unbeliever, is an unbe- 
liever himself ; and so is the man who has doubts of the 
man who doubts, and so on ad infinitum. The rest of the 
Mu'tazilah agreed to condemn only him who admitted that 
Allah could be seen when man confronted him, or when 
the rays of the sight of the seer reached the seen. Those 
who assert that there is sight, are united in condemning 
al-Murdar, as well as those who doubt his condemnation. 
The Mu'tazilah report that when death came to al-Murdar 
he gave the dying command that his goods should be given 
as alms and that none of his possessions were to be given 
to his heirs. Abu-al-Husain al-Khaiyat tried to excuse him 
for this, saying : "The right to some of his goods was ques- 
tionable, and the poor had a claim on them." By this excuse 



he only proved that al-Murdar was a robber and a betrayer 
of the poor. And the robber, according to the Mu'tazilah is 
a shameless person, condemned to eternal hell. The rest of 
the Mu'tazilah condemned him because of his view about 
the generation of one deed by two creators. Al-Murdar 
himself condemned abu-al-Hudhail for his view about the 
annihilation of the powers of Allah. He wrote a book on 
this, and he condemned his own teacher Bishr ibn-al-Mu'ta- 153 
mar for his view about the creation of colors, tastes, smells 
and perceptions. He also condemned al-Nazzam's view that 
created things are the deed of Allah. This, he said, would 
necessitate the acceptance of the views of the Christians, 
namely, that " the Messiah, the son of Allah, was a creation 
of Allah." This would make of him a Mu'tazilah in monk- 
ish dress ! He condemned his sheikhs, and his sheikhs con- 
demned him. Both parties are justified in condemning each 

9. Concerning the Ja'fanyah. These are the followers 
of two Ja'fars among them, one is Ja'far ibn-Harb * and 
the other is Ja'far ibn-Mubashshir. Both of them attained 
the heights of error and the depths of ignorance. As to 
Ja'far ibn-Mubashshir, he claimed that among the corrupt 
of this community there are some who are worse than the 
Jews, Christians, Magians and Zindiks. 2 This was in spite 
of his view that these same corrupt persons were unitar- 
ians, and neither believers nor unbelievers. He thus made 
the unitarian who is not an unbeliever worse than the infidel 
dualist. The least we can oppose to this view of his is to 
say to him : "According to us, thou art worse than all un- 
believers on the face of the earth." He also claimed that 

1 Only alluded to by Shahrastani. Both of the Ja'fars are to be found 
in Mas'udI, Les Prairies d'Or, vol. v, p. 443 and vol. vii, p. 231. Horten, 
ibid., pp. 200, 295. 

2 A Thanawiyah or dualist, also applied to an unbeliever. 



the consensus of the companions to the effect that he who 
drinks spirituous wine should be beaten, is wrong, because 
their agreement is reached through speculation (not given 
in the Koran or tradition). Ja'far shares this heresy of his 
with the Najadat among the Khawarij, who condemn pun- 
ishment for the use of liquor. The theologians of the com- 
munity unite in condemning him who rejects the punish- 
ment for drinking raw wine, they differ only about nabldh, 1 
provided one does not get drunk from it. If one does, 
however, get drunk from it, then, according to the view of 
the followers of speculation and tradition, one deserves 
punishment in spite of those who disagree with this view. 
154 Ibn-Mubashshir also claimed that he who steals a single 
grain, or even something less, is corrupt, and is condemned 
to hell. In this he differs from his predecessors who main- 
tained that minor sins may be forgiven, if their author 
avoids the major ones. He also claimed that the condem- 
nation of the guilty to hell-fire can be inferred by mental 
processes, thereby differing from his predecessors, that such 
a thing was known through the law and. not through reason. 
Moreover, he claims that if a man send to a Avoman, asking 
her to marry him, and she come to him, and he take and 
possess her without a contract, she is not to be punished, 
because she came to him with the idea of being married. 
But the punishment must fall upon the man, because he in- 
tended fornication. This ignorant man did not know that 
she who gives in to fornication is a fornicator unless she is 
forced. The legists differ only about a man who forces a 
woman to commit fornication, some holding that the woman 
should have a dowry and the man be punished. Al-ShafVl 
and the legists of al-Hijaz agree about this. Some with- 
hold the punishment of the man because they consider 
that the dowry is sufficient punishment for him. But not 

1 Date-wine. 



one of the early Moslems thought it right to withhold pun- 
ishment from a woman who gives in to fornication, which 
was ibn-Mubashshir's view. The opposition of the con- 
sensus is sufficient shame for him. As for Ja'far ibn-Harb, 
he shared in the errors of his preceptor, al-Murdar, and also 
added his view to the effect that a part of the whole is dif- 
ferent from the whole. This amounts to saying that the 
whole is different from itself, since all parts of it are dif- 
ferent from it. He also claimed that what is forbidden by 
the mind has power over (that) mind, but has no power 
over another thing. This is what al-Sha'bi 1 said of him 
in his treatises. On this basis it was necessary that he 
should hold that he who knows a thing does not know it! 155 
'Abd-al-Kahir says : " Ibn-Harb wrote a book explaining 
his errors ; but we have refuted his book, by a book called 
Harb (war) against ibn-Harb, and in it, by the help of 
Allah and his gifts, we refute its bases and its principles. 

10. Concerning the Iskaflyah among them. These are the 
followers of Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah al-Iskafi. 2 He took 
his errors about predestination from Ja'far ibn-Harb, but 
came to differ ever certain of his deductions. He claimed 
that to Allah can be attributed the power to oppress chil- 
dren and madmen, but not those who have their full senses. 
He disagreed with the view of al-Nazzam, according to 
which Allah had not the power to act unjustly or to lie. 
He likewise disagreed with the view of those of his prede- 
cessors who hold that Allah could practice injustice and lie, 
but does not do so because he knows that they are both 
abominations, and that he can do without them. Between 
these two views he took a middle course, according to which 

1 Misprint in Baghdadl for al-Shafi'I. 

2 Horten, ibid., p. 299 et seq. Mas'udi, ibid., vol. vi, p. 58; vol. vii, 
P- 231. 



he claimed that Allah has the power to act unjustly only to 
those who have no mind, but not to those who have their 
senses. His predecessors condemned him for this, and he 
condemned them for differing from him. He became so 
abstruse in his heresy as to say that it could be said that 
Allah spoke to his subjects, but that it could not be said that 
he spoke with them. Moreover he calls Allah the addressor 
but not the conversor. He claimed that in using the word 
conversor it would mean that the word arises in him, which 
is not the case with the addressor. Just as the use of the 
word " who sets something in motion " implies that the 
motion commences in him, so does the expression " who 
converses " imply that the speaking commences with him. 
We believe this to be true; the word of Allah we believe 
originates with him. As to his predecessors among the 
Kadarivah, verily they would say to him : " This excuse of 
156 yours forces you to conclude that that part of the body of 
man that 4 speaks ? is the tongue. This is enough because, 
according to you, the word dwells in the tongue. You must, 
indeed, accept this absurdity that applies the name of the 
speaker to a thing, because the word, according to you and 
the rest of the Mu'tazilah, is composed of letters, and it is 
not possible for one letter to be a word. The place of each 
letter among the letters of the word is different from the 
place of the rest of the letters. Your reasoning would, 
therefore, mean that man could not be a speaker, nor could 
any part of him be a speaker. And according to your asser- 
tion, ' Allah is not the speaker because the word does not 
arise within him '." 

Some of the Mu'tazilah glorified al-Iskafi, by claiming 
that when Muhammad ibn-al-Hasan saw him walking, he 
dismounted from his horse. Evidently this is a lie, because 
al-Iskafi did not live at the time of Muhammad ibn-al- 
Hasan. for ibn-al-Hasan died in al-Rai during the caliphate 



of Karun al-Rashid, while al-Iskafi was not alive in the 
time of al-Rashid; and even if he had been alive in the time 
of Muhammad, Muhammad would not have dismounted 
from his horse for a man whom he considered a heretic. 
Hisham ibn-'Ubaidallah al-Razi reported as the word of 
Muhammad ibn-al-Hasan that whoever follows a Mu'ta- 
zilah in prayer, his prayers must be repeated. Hisham also 
reported of Yahya ibn-Aktham, 1 who had it from abu- 
Yusuf, that he was questioned about the Mu'tazilah and 
said, " They are Zindiks." Al-Shafi'i has pointed out in his 
book Al-Kiyas his refusal to accept the testimony of the wit- 
ness of the Mu'tazilah and the people led astray by their de- 
sires [AM al-Ahwa]. In this question Malik and the legal 
authorities of al-Madinah agree. If that is so, how could 
the Imams of Islam, who condemned the Kadariyah, honor 
them by dismounting for them ? 

ii. Concerning the ThmMmlyah among them. These are 157 
the followers of Thamamah ibn-Ashras al-Numairi, 2 one of 
their freedmen. He was the leader of the Kadariyah in the 
time of al-Ma'mun, al-Mu'tasim and al-Wathik. It is said 
that he is the one who led al-Ma'mun astray by making him 
a Mu'tazilite. Two heresies distinguished him from the 
rest of the predecessors of the Mu'tazilah, and it was for 
these that the whole community condemned him. One of 
these heresies was that when he shared the opinions of the 
" companions of wisdom " in their assertion that knowledge 
is necessary, he claimed that he whom Allah does not compel 
to know him (Allah), is not compelled to know, nor is he 
prohibited from unbelief, but is created for unpaid work 
and slave labor, and is therefore to be classed with animals 
who are not responsible. As a result of this, he claimed 

3 Mas'udi, ibid. General index. 
2 Not in Shahrastani. 



that the community of al-Dahriyah and the Christians, and 
the Zindiks, become dust in the end. He also claimed that 
the next world is only the abode of reward or punishment, 
so for the one who died as a child, or who knows Allah by 
necessity, there is no virtue for which they deserve a re- 
waid, nor sin for which they deserve punishment. Thus 
they become dust, since they have no share in reward or 

Thamamah's second heresy is his view that generated 
acts are acts without an author. This error leads to the de- 
nial of the creator of the world, because if it is true that 
one deed can exist without a doer, it is possible for every 
deed to exist without a doer, and then one could not prove 
the existence of the doer from the deeds, nor would the 
creation of the world be a proof of its creator. This would 
be similar to the assertion that there could be writing with- 
jcg out a writer, or erasing without one who erases, or a build- 
ing without a builder. It might be said to him : "According 
to you then, the word of man is a deed without a doer. 
Why do you then blame man for his lies and his words of 
unbelief, since, according to you, he is not the author of his 
act of lying, or his words of unbelief ?" 

Among his shameful heresies Thamamah used also to 
say that the abode of Islam was the abode of polytheism. 
Moreover, he forbade captivity because the captive, accord- 
ing to him, could not have disobeyed his Lord, not having 
known him. According to him, also, rebellion is possible 
only for him who knows his Lord by necessity and then 
denies him, or rebels against him. From this assertion, it 
follows that he confesses himself a son of adultery because 
he belonged to the freedmen, while his mother was a cap- 
tive, and to enter in to one who could not be a captive, ac- 
cording to the law governing capture, is adultery. His 
children are therefore children of adultery. Thamamah's 
heresy about this matter suited his pedigree. 



The historians report wonderful things regarding the 
imbecility of Thamamah and his shamelessness. Among 
these is what 'Abdallah ibn-Muslim ibn-Kutaibah said in his 
book Mukhtalaf al-Hadith. He said in this that Thamamah 
ibn-Ashras saw men on a Friday hastening to the mosque 
for fear the hour of prayer would pass. Whereupon he 
said to a companion of his, " Look at these donkeys and 
cows." Then he said, " What has that Arab made out of 
men?", meaning the Prophet of Allah. 

Al-Jahiz said in his book of jests that al-Ma'mun was 
riding one day when he saw Thamamah drunk, and rolling 
in the mud, and he said, " Thamamah?" Thamamah re- 
plied, " Yes, by Allah." "Aren't you ashamed?" " No, by 
Allah." " Upon thee be the curse of Allah." kk Let it 
come." Al-Jahiz also said that a servant of Thamamah 
said to him one day, "Arise and pray," but he paid no atten- 
tion. And the servant said to him, " The time is short, 
arise and pray and rest," and Thamamah replied, k * T will 
rest if you will leave me." 

The author of Ta'rikh al-Mardtwimh says that Thama- 
mah ibn-Ashras accused Ahmad ibn-Nasr al-Marwazi to al- 
Wathik, 1 saying that the former condemned everyone who 
denies that Allah can be seen, and everyone who claims 
that the Koran was created, and is free from the heresy of 
al-Kadariyah. Wathik thereupon put him to death, but 
promptly repented of his death, and blamed Thamamah, 
ibn-abi-Da'ud 2 and ibn-al-Zaiyat 3 who advised his death. 
Ibn-al-Zaiyat said to him : "If his death does not have 
good results, may Allah slay me between fire and water." 
Ibn-abi-Da'ud said : " May Allah imprison me in my skin if 
his death was not the right thing." Thamamah said : " May 

1 Tabarl ed. Zotenberg, vol. iv, p. 546. 

2 Ibn-Khallikan, ibid., vol. i, p. 61. 

3 Fihrist, p. 122. 



Allah cause swords to rule over me, if you were not right 
in killing him." Allah answered the prayers of each one 
in his own way. As to ibn-al-Zaiyat, verily he was killed 
in the hath, and fell into the fire with his clothes on, and 
thus died between fire and water. As to ibn-abi-Da ud, al- 
Mutawakkil imprisoned him, and he had a stroke of paral- 
ysis while in prison, thus remaining imprisoned in his skin 
by paralysis until he died. And as for Thamamah, he went 
to Mecca where the Khuza'ah saw him between al-Safa 
and al-Marwah, and one of the men called out and said: 
" O ye men of Khuza'ah, this is the man who conspired 
against your master, Ahmad ibn-Fihr, and it was he who 
caused his death." Whereupon the banu-Khuza'ah gath- 
ered against him with their swords and killed him. Then 
they brought his body out from the sacred enclosure, and 
the wild animals outside devoured it. Thus Allah's words 
160 were fulfilled: "And they tasted the harmfulness of their 
own conduct: and the end of their conduct was ruin" 
(Surah 65, v. 9). 

12. Concerning the Jahizlyah among them. These are the 
followers of 'Amr ibn-Bahr al-Jahiz. ] They are the people 
who were led away by the beauty of the language used by 
al-Jahiz in his books, about which we might say: "They are 
compositions which are clear, though they have no meaning, 
and contain words which terrify, though they have no sub- 
stance." Had they known the ignorance shown in his here- 
sies, far from ascribing beauties to him, they would have 
begged Allah's pardon for calling him a man. Among the 
errors ascribed to him, which al-Ka'bi, in spite of his pride 
in him, relates about him in his treatises, are the words: 
" All knowledge comes by nature, nevertheless it is an 

1 Shahrastani, ibid., vol. i, p. 77- Mas'udi, ibid., vol. iii, pp. 22-25; 
vol. v, p. 80; vol. viii, pp. 33-36. Ibn-Khallikan, ibid., vol. ii, p. 4°5- 



activity of man in which he has no choice." They add that 
al-Jahiz agreed with Thamamah that man has no other 
activity except the will, and that the rest of his acts are 
ascribed to man only in the sense that they occur by nature, 
and naturally arise from his will." He says that he also 
claimed that it is not possible to become an adult without 
knowing Allah. According to him, infidels are stubborn, 
though knowing, taken up with a love for their particular 
school, thankless for the knowledge he (Muhammad) has 
of his creator, and the truth preached by his messengers. 
If al-Jahiz agrees with al-Ka'bi that man does nothing 
without free-will, he is then obliged to maintain that man 
does not pray, nor fast, nor go on a pilgrimage, nor com- 
mit adultery, nor steal, nor calumniate, nor kill. Because, 
according to him, it is not he that performs prayer, nor 
fasts, nor makes a pilgrimage, nor commits adultery, nor 
steals, nor kills, nor calumniates, For these acts, according 
to him, are not done with his will. And if these acts which 
we have mentioned are, according to him, natural and not 
acquired, it must necessarily follow that man should in no 
sense have reward or punishment for them, because man 161 
cannot be rewarded or punished for what he has not ac- 
quired himself ; just as he is not rewarded or punished for 
his color, or the mechanism of his members, since these are 
not of his own attaining. 

Among the heresies of al-Jahiz is also his view of the 
impossibility of the annihilation of the bodies after their 
creation. This results in the view that Allah is able to 
create a thing, but is unable to annihilate it; and that he 
cannot remain alone after he has created a creation, in the 
same way that he was alone before he created it. But we, 
even if we say that Allah does not annihilate paradise and 
its pleasures, and hell and its torments, do not mean it 
in the sense that Allah has not the power to annihilate all 



this. We mean only that paradise and hell are everlasting 
in a general way. 

Among the heresies of al-Jahiz there is also his view that 
Allah does not cause anyone to enter hell, but that hell 
attracts its people of itself by its very nature, and then holds 
on to them of itself forever. This would also compel the 
view that paradise attracts people to itself by its nature, and 
that Allah does not cause anyone to enter paradise. If one 
were to hold this view, the desire for Allah's rewards would 
cease, and the use of prayer would be gone. On the other 
hand, if he said that Allah caused those who should go to 
paradise to enter paradise, he would also have to say that he 
caused the people of hell to enter hell. Al-Ka'bi boasts 
about al-Jahiz, claiming that he was one of the sheikhs of 
the Mu'tazilah. He also boasts of his many literary works, 
and claims that he was a Kinani of the banu-Kinanah, ibn- 
162 Khuzaimah ibn-Mudrakah ibn-Ilyas ibn-Mudhar. It might 
be said to al-Ka'bi: " If he [al-Jahiz] was a Kinani as you 
claim, why did he write the book, The boasting of the Kah- 
t amy ah over the Kinanlyah and the rest of the ' Adnanlyah? 
Moreover, if he was an Arab, then why did he write the 
book, The Superiority of the Freedmen over the Arabs f 
Moreover, he mentioned in his book called, Concerning the 
Boasting of Kahtan over 'Adrian, a number of poems in 
which Kahtan satirizes 'Adnan. And in truth the man who 
delights in the satires against his fathers is like the man 
who himself satirizes his father. In satirizing ibn-Bassam x 
who satirized his own father, Jahzah 2 has rightly said : 
" Whoever satirizes his father — the mere fact of his satir- 
izing is sufficient (to show that he is not his son), for had 
he been his son he would not have satirized his father." 1 
He composed many fantastic books. One of them tells of 

1 Ibid., vol. ii, p. 301. The text seems uncertain. 

2 Ibid., vol. i, p. 118. 



the tricks of robbers; in this manner he taught evil people 
the methods of stealing. And among his books are those 
on the tithes of industry in which he depreciated the com- 
modities of merchants. Among them also in his book on 
laws, which shows how dishonest men get hold of the 
treasures and money of the people. There is also his book 
about the Fatwa (religious decision), which is full of 
attacks by his preceptor, al-Nazzam, on the teachings of 
the Companions; also his books about prostitutes and 
rabies, and sodomy, and about the tricks of the avaricious. 
The contents of these books suit him, his trade and his 
family. He also has a book about the habits of animals, 
the contents of which he drew from Aristotle's book on 
animals, and to it he added what is mentioned by al- 
Mada'im * regarding the knowledge of the Arabs, and their 
poems about the uses to which animals could be put. He 
rilled the book with dialogues between dogs and roosters. 
To be engaged in such dialogues wastes time on that which 
is loathsome. And to whomever boasts about al-Jahiz, we 
commend the saying of the orthodox about him in the l6 3 
words of the poet concerning him : 

" If the ugliness of the swine is doubled 
His ugliness would still be inferior to that of al-Jahiz, 
A man who is himself a substitute for hell, 
And a mote in the eye of everyone who looks at him." 

13. Concerning the Shahhamlyah among them. These 
are the followers of abu-Ya'kub al-Shahham, 2 who was the 
preceptor of al-Jubba 1. His heresies resemble the heresies 
of al-Jubba'i, except that he considers it possible that there 
is one thing determined by two determiners. Al-Jubba 1 
and his son denied this. Some of the weak-minded imag- 
ined that the teaching of al-Shahham was similar to that of 

1 Ibid., vol. i, p. 578. 

2 Horten, ibid., p. 338. 



the Sifatiyah on this point. But there is a wide difference 
between the two views. Al-Shahham allowed the possibility 
of there being one thing determined by two determiners — 
each one of which two could produce the thing determined 
interchangeably. Al-Ka'bi reports this in his book entitled 
f Uyun al-Masail' ala abi-al-Hudhail. But the Sifatiyah do 
not grant the possibility of two creators. When they do 
grant that there are two determiners for one thing deter- 
mined, they do so in the sense that one of the two is its 
creator and the other the acquirer, and the creator is not the 
acquirer, nor the acquirer the creator. This gives the ex- 
planation of the difference between the two parties in the 
difference of their two methods of exposition. 

14. Concerning the Khaiyatlyah among them. These are 
the followers of abu-al-Husain al-Khaiyat, who was the 
preceptor of al-Ka'bi in his heresy. Al-Khaiyat agreed 
with the rest of the Kadanvah in most of their heresies, 
except that he differed from them in saying on the non- 
existent what none had said before. For the Mu'tazilah 
disagreed about calling the non-existent an object. Some 
164 of them say it is not true that the non-existent can be known, 
or described, nor that it is an object, nor a substance, 
nor an essence, nor a phenomenon. This was the opinion 
of al-Salihi among them. 1 He agreed with the orthodox in 
not calling the non-existent an object. But others of the 
Mu'tazilah claimed that the non-existent is an object which 
can be known and described, but is not essence or phenom- 
enon. This was al-Ka'bf s opinion. Al-Jubba ? i and his son 
abu-Hashim claimed that ever}- attribute was rendered real, 
either for itself or for its genus, by the one that originated 
it, and that such attribute remained, existing even when 
(the object) is non-existent. He claimed further that an 

1 Ibid., p. 305. 



essence was an essence even when in a state of non-exist- 
ence, that a phenomenon was a phenomenon even when in 
a state of non-existence, and that black was black, and white 
was white even when non-existent. All of these men, how- 
ever, forbade calling the non-existent a body; the body, 
according to them, has become complex, and comes to be an 
agglomerate, having length and breadth and depth; it is 
impossible to- describe something non-existent by something 
to which a bodily reality is attributed. From all the Mu'ta- 
zilah, as well as from the rest of the sects of the faithful, 
al-Khaiyat differs on this subject. He claims that the body 
when non-existent is a body because it must be a body when 
it appears, but that it is not necessary for the non-existent 
to be in motion, because, according to him, a body when it 
appears is not necessarily in motion. He said : " Every 
attribute [or qualification] may become existent when [the 
thing described] makes its appearance " ; therefore he holds 
it to be existent even in its state of non-existence. Such 
reasoning demands that man be man before he appears as 
such. This were possible if Allah could have brought him 
into existence in the form of man in all his completeness 
without having formed him in the loins and in the womb, 
and without at all changing him from one form to another. 165 
The most advanced of these Khaiyatiyah are called al- 
Ma'dumiyah because of their extreme views on ascribing 
to the non-existent most of the attributes of all existing 
things. This appellation stuck to them. In a separate book, 
al-Jubba'i broke with al-Khaiyat over his view that the body 
was a body before its appearance. He makes the point 
that this view leads to the view of the pre-existence of 
bodies (as opposed to their being created). But the fol- 
lowing conclusion is necessary on the part of al-Khaiyat, 
al-Jubba'i and his son — namely, that essences and phenom- 
ena are essences and phenomena even in a state of non- 


existence. If they now say that they are still objects, 
essences, and phenomena, whose appearance is dependent 
upon their being objects, they are still forced to regard them 
as eternal, and in reality hold the same view as do those who 
believe that essences and phenomena are pre-existent. Be- 
sides his heresy about Kadar and non-existence, al-Khaiyat 
denied the value of traditions coming from a single author- 
ity. In doing this he practically denied most of the Shari'ah 
laws, because most of the legal ordinances are based upon 
traditions going back to a single authority. Al-Ka'bi wrote 
a book against him on the evidence coming from tradition 
going back to a single person. In this book he con- 
demns ( ?) * those who deny such evidence. We say to al- 
Ka'bl : " It is enough shame and disgrace for you to have 
been connected with a preceptor whose heresy you ac- 

15. Concerning the Ka'blyah among them. These are 
the followers of abu-Kasim 'Abdallah ibn-Ahmad ibn-Mah- 
mud al-Banahi, known as al-Ka'bi. . . . (The text of the 
following sentence is not clear. ) He was a gatherer of wood 
^ before he was introduced to various studies, both special and 
166 general, and he did not acquire a deep knowledge of their 
secrets in any one department. In fact, he failed to grasp 
the superficial, — how much more, then, the kernel. He dif- 
fered from the Basriyun among the Mu'tazilah over many 
points, for the Basriyun held that Allah sees his people in the 
body, and with colors; but they denied that he sees himself, 
just as they deny that others see him. Al-Ka'bi. on the other 
hand, claimed that Allah does not see himself, nor anyone 
else, except in the sense that he knows himself and others. 
He followed al-Nazzam in his view that Allah does not liter- 

1 The text at this point is clear, but the meaning is obviously con- 



ally see anything. Another thing over which he differed 
from the Basriyun and our followers is that they held that 
Allah literally hears word and sound, and not simply in the 
sense that he knows them. Al-Ka'bi and the Baghdadiyun 
among the Mu'tazilah claimed that Allah hears nothing in 
the sense of perception known as sound. Moreover, they de- 
fined Allah's attribute as the hearer and the seer, in the sense 
that he had knowledge of the hearable which others heard 
and the seeable which others saw. Furthermore, some of 
them claim that the Basriyun among them, together with 
our followers, hold that Allah exercises will in the true sense 
of the word. But our followers say that he does not cease 
willing through an eternal will, while the Basriyun, among 
the Mu'tazilah, claim that he wills through his temporal 
will, unlimited by space. Al-Ka'bi and al-Nazzam, however, 
and their followers do not agree with these two views, for 
they claim that Allah has no actual will, and that when one 
says that Allah wills a thing which he performs, one means 
that he did this thing, and when one says that he of himself 
willed a deed, one means that he commanded it. According 
to both of these explanations, ascribing will to him is merely 
figurative, just as in the words of Allah : " The wall wills 167 
to fall " (Surah 18, v. 76), the ascribing of will to a wall is 
merely figurative. For this denial of the will of Allah they 
together with our followers were condemned as heretics by 
the Basriyun. Another thing over which they disagreed was 
that al-Ka'bi claimed that he who is killed is not dead. But 
this does not agree with the word of Allah : " Every spirit 
must taste of death " (Surah 3, v. 186). The rest of the 
people agreed that all killed are dead, although they admit 
that a dead person is not necessarily killed. Another point 
of disagreement is that al-Ka'bi held the same views as 
those who make it compulsory on Allah to do the best thing, 
as a matter of necessity. Still other points of disagree- 



ment were that both the Basriyun and our followers held 
that ability does not necessarily mean soundness of body 
and safety from disease. Al-Ka'bi claims that it does. 
As for the Basriyun among the Mu'tazilah, they condemn 
the Baghdadiyun among them, while the latter in their 
turn condemn the former. As a matter of fact, each party 
is justified in condemning the other, as we explained in the 
book entitled, Heresies of the KadariyaJi. 

1 6. Concerning the Jubbalyah among them. These are 
the followers of abu-'AH al-Jubba'I 1 who led astray the 
people of Khuzistan. The Mu'tazilah of Basrah at that 
time belonged to his school, but afterwards joined the school 
of his son abu-Hashim. Among the heresies of al-Jubba'i 
was the one in which he said that Allah is obedient to his 
servant if he does what his servant wills. The reason for 
this was that one day he said to our sheikh abii-1-Hasan al- 
Ash'ari, "According to you, what does obedience mean?" 
168 The sheikh answered, "Agreement to a command," and then 
asked for his opinion in this matter. Al-Jubba'I said : "The 
essence of obedience, according to me, is agreement to the 
will. And whoever fulfils the will of another obeys him " 
[/. e. the other]. Our sheikh abu-1-Hasan answered: "Ac- 
cording to this, one must conclude that Allah is obedient to 
his servant if he [Allah] fulfils his will " [i. e. the servant's 
will]. He granted this. Then our sheikh said: "You 
differ from the community of Moslems and you blaspheme 
the Lord of the Worlds. For if Allah is obedient to his 
servant, then he must be subject to him. Allah is far and 
away above being this. Al-Jubba'i furthermore claimed 
that the names of Allah are subject to the regular rules of 
grammar; he therefore considered it possible to derive a 
name for him [Allah] from every deed which he performs. 

1 Horten, ibid., p. 352. 



Our sheikh abu-1-Hasan said, that according to this view 
Allah should be named " the producer of pregnancy among 
women," because he creates the pregnancy in them. Al- 
Jubba I could not escape this conclusion. Our sheikh said : 
" This heresy of yours is worse than the heresy of the 
Christians in calling Allah the father of Jesus, although 
even they do not hold that he produced pregnancy in Mary." 
Among the heresies of al-Jubba I was also the one, accord- 
ing to which he considered it possible for one phenomenon 
to be in many places even in more than a thousand thousand 
places. Thus he considered it possible for one word to be 
in a thousand thousand places, and he claimed that when a 
word written in one place is then written in another, it ex- 
ists in two places, without passing from the first place to 
the second, and without making its appearance in the second. 
It is thus the same whether it is written in a thousand 
places, or in a thousand thousand places. He and his son 
abu-al-Hashim claimed that Allah, when he desires to de- 
stroy the world, creates a spaceless phenomenon by means 
of which he destroys all bodies and essences. But it is not 
within the power of Allah to destroy some essences and 
to spare others. Though he created them separately, he l &9 
is not able to destroy them separately. It is reported 
that our sheikh said to al-Jubba 1 : " If you say that Allah 
wishes all that he decrees, then what do you say of a man 
to whom a debt is owed, and the payment is constantly 
being put off, and the debtor says, ' Verily I will pay you 
the debt tomorrow, if Allah wishes,' and then does not pay 
his debt the next day?" He answered that such a man vio- 
lated his oath, because Allah desires him to pay the debt 
then. Our sheikh said to him : " You differ from the com- 
munity of the Moslems who preceded you, for they agreed 
before you that he who binds his oath to the will of Allah 
does not violate it if he does not keep his oath." 



17. Concerning the Bahshannyah. These are the follow- 
ers of abu-Hashim and of al-Jubba'I, and most of the Mu'- 
tazilah of our age hold the same view regarding the claims 
he made on ibn-'Abbad, the vizier of the Buwaihids. They 
were called al-Dhimmiyah because of their view concerning 
the deserving of blame, even though the deed is not per- 
formed. They shared in most of the heresies of the Mu ( - 
tazilah, though they also distinguished themselves from them 
in special heresies which they were the first to hold. Among 
others, was their view about the deserving of blame and 
punishment when a deed had not been performed. Thus 
verily they claimed that the one who is able to do a thing 
[desiring to do it], may not do it, and yet commit infidel- 
ity, in spite of the fact that there is no hindrance to the 
deed. This assertion of theirs is due to the fact that our 
followers said to the Mu'tazilah, if you declare it possible 
that ability precede the deed, it necessarily follows that 
two times and the many times are equal, because the one 
precedes the other. They came to differ over the answer to 
the conclusion, some saying that the occurrence of the deed 
170 or its non-occurrence is possible, while ability is passing 
from the state of possibility to that of actuality. He had to 
conclude that the occurrence of the deed or its non-occur- 
rence is possible when no hindrance exists. In addition to 
this, it was claimed that ability does not mean ability to 
perform the deed at the moment of occurrence ; one of them 
granted that ability might be non-existent just as the occur- 
rence of the deed was non-existent at the very time when 
inability occurred, which is the very opposite of ability 
which has vanished after having existed. Abu-Hashim 
ibn-al-Jubba'I saw the necessity of accepting the conclusion 
forced on him by our companions, to wit : equality between 
the two times and the many, in that he held it possible that 
ability should precede the deed. It was impossible for the 



Mu'tazilites to come to a real conclusion and he had to find 
some way out. He considered it possible for the man with 
ability to last forever together with the continuance of his 
power— the Koran verse fitting his case and all hindrances 
being removed with regard to it, in so far as concerns the 
doing of the deed and its abandonment. Concerning this it 
was said to him : "Can you see what is the condition of the 
man who possesses ability and has moral responsibility, but 
dies before he has performed an act of obedience or disobe- 
dience by his ability?" He answered : " He deserves blame 
and the punishment of eternity, not because of his deeds, 
but because he has not done that which he was commanded 
to do, although he had the ability and had no hindrances." 
It was said to him : " How does he deserve punishment for 
not doing what he was commanded, and not doing what he 
was forbidden to do, and not deserving a reward because he 
did not do what he was forbidden to do, even if he does not 
do what he was commanded ?" 

There were some of his predecessors among the Mu'ta- 
zilah who used to condemn him who says that Allah pun- 
ishes the disobedient because of the commission of a sin, 
which the sinner did not himself originate. They, however, 
now said : " It is preferable to condemn abu-Hashim for 
his views on the punishment of one who was not disobe- 
dient, either for his own deed or for that of some one else." 
Furthermore, he should be condemned for calling the per- 
son who did not do what he was commanded disobedient, 
even though that person did not commit a disobedience, 
thus applying the name of obedient only to him who 
actually obeys the command. If it is possible to have a 
disobedient person without having actual disobedience, then 
it is possible to have an obedient person without actual 
obedience, or an unbeliever without actual unbelief. More- 
over, besides these hateful heresies, he claimed that if 



this morally responsible man did a wrong thing, he would, 
in this case, deserve a double portion of the punishment. 
One part for the hateful thing which he did, and the 
other because he did not perform the beautiful thing which 
was commanded him. If he does the right thing and per- 
forms the deeds of the prophet, and Allah commands 
him to do a thing which he does not do, nor does he 
do the opposite, then indeed he becomes immortal. The 
rest of the Mu'tazilah condemned him for the three follow- 
ing propositions. First, his statement that punishment is 
deserved, even when not due to the actual deed. Secondly, 
his claim that a double portion of the punishment is de- 
erved, when a wrong thing is committed (for doing what 
is wrong, and for not doing what is right). And thirdly, 
his view that if he does the right thing, and is obedient just 
as were the prophets, and yet fails to do one thing which 
Allah commanded him, but at the same time does not do its 
opposite, in that case he does not deserve eternal fire in hell. 
About his view of the double portion of punishment, our 
companions said that there must, according to this, be two 
punishments; for example, in the case of adultery, one 
punishment is for adultery which is committed, and the 
second because he failed to do that which was incumbent 
on him, i. e. % avoiding adultery. The same view holds re- 
garding blasphemy, punishment, and drinking of wine. 
172 They said that it also necessarily follows that two atone- 
ments are incumbent upon him who breaks the fast in the 
month of Ramadan, one for a breaking of the fast, which 
necessitates atonement, and the other because he did not do 
that which was incumbent on him, i. e., fasting and with- 
holding from food. When ibn-al-Jubbai saw the trend 
that his conclusion was taking against him, because of these 
heresies of his, he committed something still more hateful 
than these heresies, in order to escape the necessity of two 



punishments and two atonements in connection with one 
deed. So he said : " He simply forbade adultery and drink- 
ing and blasphemy. But as for the avoiding of these deeds, 
it is not compulsory for man." Furthermore, they said that 
he must conclude that there are three punishments and more 
ad infinitum, because he asserted that there are two punish- 
ments for that which is committed by man, one because he 
did not commit the act, and one because he did not commit 
its cause. According to him, we may find causes produced 
by many preceding causes. For example, take the hitting 
of the target with an arrow, this is produced by many 
motions accomplished by the throwing of the arrow. 
Everyone of these motions is a cause for that which follows 
until the actual hitting of the target takes place. If there 
were a hundred motions, the hundredth of them would be 
the cause of the hitting. One should therefore conclude 
that if Allah commanded a man to hit, and he does not do 
so, he deserves a hundred punishments and one more, the 
latter because he did not make the hit, and the hundred be- 
cause he did not make the necessary motions. One must 
also conclude that if a man was commanded to speak, and 
did not do so, he deserves two punishments, one because he 
did not say the word, and one because he did not produce its 
cause; but if he performed something opposite to the cause 
of the word, he does not deserve both punishments, for this 
would take the place of the cause which he did not produce. 
We said to him : " Would one deserve three punishments, 
one because he does not say the word, another because he 
does not produce its cause, and a third because of the per- 
formance of the opposite of the cause of the word?" Some 173 
of our companions report of him that he did not assert that 
there were two punishments except in the case of his not 
having produced the cause of speaking a word. But he had 
pointed out the opposite view in his book Istihkak al-Dhim- 



mah (The Demanding of Protection). In this he said that 
every thing that could have a special neglect is in the same 
category as the cause of a spoken word. But those things 
which cannot have special neglect are in the same category 
as the neglecting of giving an obligatory gift, such as alms, 
and atonement, as the payment of a debt and the return of 
unlawful possessions. What he meant was that alms and 
atonement and the like are not performed by a special organ 
and that there is not a special organ of neglect in connection 
with each one. For if a man prays or goes on the pilgrimage, 
or does other things of the kind, it will occasion a neglect 
of alms. As to speaking a word, the cause for its neglect 
must be special, and therefore to neglect it is hateful. There- 
fore, if he neglect the cause of speaking a word, he deserves 
one portion of punishment. But in the matter of giving 
there is no hateful neglect. Therefore, one who does not 
give does not deserve another portion of punishment in ad- 
dition to the blame he deserves. And so they said to him : 
" If the neglect of prayer and alms is not hateful, then it 
must be beautiful." Such a view is a departure from religion 
and all that is connected iwth it. Among the inconsistencies 
he committed in this chapter is the fact that he called him 
who did not do what he ought a wrongdoer, even though he 
were not actually doing wrong. He thus called him unbe- 
liever and heretic, but hesitated to call him disobedient. He 
thus considered it possible for Allah to consign a man to fire 
forever, even though he did not deserve the appellation of 
disobedient. But if he called him unbeliever and heretic, he 
must call him disobedient; whereas, if he refrains from 
calling him disobedient he should not call him heretic and 
unbeliever. Another inconsistency is his disagreement with 
the consensus of opinion by making distinction between 
j 74 recompense and reward, according to which he said : " It 
follows that there may be much reward in heaven which is 



not recompense, and that in hell there may be much retri- 
bution that is not recompense. He refused to call it recom- 
pense, because recompense is only for an act, and accord- 
ing to him there may be punishment without there having 
been any act. It might well be said of him : " Since there 
can be no recompense save for an act, then why do you 
deny that there is no reward and retribution except for 
an act?" 

Abu-Hashim's second heresy was his view that one could 
deserve blame and praise for the act of another. For ex- 
ample, if Zaid commands 'Amr to give something to some- 
one else, and he does so, he deserves thanks from the re- 
cipient of the gift for the act which was really due to the 
act of someone else. In the same way if he commanded 
him a sin, and he committed it, he does not himself deserve 
the blame for the sin which is due to the act of another. 
This view of his is not like the view of the rest of the com- 
munity, in that he claims that one deserves thanks or blame 
according to the command given, not according to the act 
commanded him, and which was done for another. This 
view forced him to say that there was double praise and 
double blame, one of them for the command which is per- 
formed, and the other for the thing commanded, which is 
in reality the act of another. How can this view of his be 
true, when he denies the truth of what those say who live 
for gain, i e. to the effect that Allah created the gains of his 
servants, and then either rewards or punishes them for it. 
It might be said to him : " What you deny on this basis, 
which is the act of another, separates you from the view of 
the Azarikah that Allah torments the child of the polytheist 
for the deed of his fathers." Furthermore, it might be said : 
"If you conclude this, then you must conclude that man iy$ 
deserves praise and reward for a deed done by Allah in 
conjunction with the deed of man, e. g. a man who is on 



his deathbed, is given food and drink, and as a result lives 
and breathes again, according to this conclusion he deserves 
praise and reward for his own life and for the satisfaction 
of his hunger and thirst, which, after all, is really an act of 

His third heresy is his view that repentance is not ac- 
cepted as long as the sinner adheres to some other evil thing 
which he knows is evil or which he believes to be evil, even 
if it is good in itself. He also claims that repentance of 
heresy cannot be accepted if the sinner still persists in with- 
holding the smallest item due by him. In support of his 
assertion he gave the following illustration, that he who 
kills another man's son and commits adultery with the 
latter's wife, his repentance for one of the sins may be 
accepted even if he persists in the other. But such an ex- 
ample can not be admitted as illustration. The acceptance 
of his repentance (for the one sin) is all right, if he is 
punished for the other, just as in the case of the son who 
is ungrateful to his father the Imam, steals from various 
persons, and commits adultery with his maids, then asks 
forgiveness of the father for the ungratefulness, and the 
repentance of his ungratefulness is accepted for the money 
he stole from him (his father), but his hand is cut off for 
the rest of the property (stolen), and he is flogged for the 
adultery. For his proof in this case he asserted that the 
only necessity for his forsaking what was evil was the fact 
of its being evil; but if he persisted in some other evil, it 
would show that the reason for his forsaking the first was 
not simply because it was evil. We say to him : " That 
which you deny is the abandoning of evil in order to escape 
retribution." Is it possible for a man to escape retribution 
for the sin of which he repents, and at the same time be 
punished for the sin of which he does not repent ? Here is 
176 what we said further to him: "The essence of what is in 



this chapter, is that he who repents of some of his sins, re- 
nouncing and repenting these sins because they are vile, but 
still persists in some other vile sin; why is this one's re- 
pentance not accepted on what he repented ; as in the case 
of the Khawarij and others who have held corrupt beliefs 
considered good by them, and whose repentance you accept 
with regard to some evil they know to be evil, even when it 
is connected with persistence in some other evil which they 
had believed was good? According to this you must con- 
clude that if you say that he is commanded to avoid every- 
thing which he believes is evil, then you say of the man 
among us who believes in the evil of the school of abu- 
Hashim, and commits adultery and theft, that his repent- 
ance cannot be accepted except by his forsaking every- 
thing which he believes is evil. He is then commanded to 
avoid adultery and theft, and to avoid the school of abu- 
Hashim, because of his belief in their evil." Our followers 
asked him about a Jew who becomes a Moslem and repents 
of all evil except that he persists in keeping a small piece of 
silver away from the one who justly deserved it, although 
he knows such an act is illegal; in such a case is the man's 
repentance of heresy to be accepted? If he said yes to this, 
he would be breaking down his own excuse, and if he said 
no he would be opposing the whole of the community, both 
because of his view that his Islamism was not true, and be- 
cause he was heretical about his Judaism which he had held 
before his repentance; lastly, because the regulations of the 
Jews are not binding on him. He claimed, therefore, that 
he did not repent of his Judaism, but persisted in it, but is 
nevertheless no Jew. This is very evidently contradictory, 
and it might be said to him that if the man persisted in his 
Judaism, then you should recognize his sacrifice as legal 
and take tax from him. This view differs from that of the 




His fourth heresy is his view that repentance from sin 
t jy after inability to sin is not acceptable. Nor, according to 
him, is repentance for lying acceptable when the tongue 
becomes unable to speak, nor repentance for adultery when 
the man is a eunuch. This is contradictory to the view of 
all of the community before him. It might be said to him : 
" Do you believe that a man who has a tongue and tells a 
lie, who can and does commit adultery, is a sinner?" And 
if he says yes, then it can be said : " In like manner, he 
must believe that if one can lie and commit adultery and yet 
does not disobey Allah, then obedience and repentance are 
necessarily present." With his excesses in threats, abu- 
Hashim was the most dissolute of the men of his time. He 
was also given to drinking wine. And it was said that he 
died when drunk, so that some Murji'ite said : 

" He says shameful things about the Murji'ah until 
He sees some hope in the sins, 

And the greatest sinner among the people are the Murji'ah 
And my servant persisted in the major sins (?)" 

His fifth heresy was his view on the conditioned will. 
The chief point in this is his view that it is not possible for 
one thing to be desired from one standpoint and abominated 
from another. What forced him to this is that he spoke 
against him who believes in different standpoints regarding 
acquisition and creation ; he said that the standpoint of ac- 
quisition is necessarily either real or unreal. If the stand- 
178 P°^ nt: ^ unreal, we should have proof of the existence of a 
thing that is both real and unreal. If it is real, it is necessar- 
ily either created or non-created. If it is created, it proves 
that it is created from all standpoints, while if it is not cre- 
ated, the mind becomes eternal (non-created) from one 
standpoint and created from another, which is an impossibil- 
ity. He was led to this view by his thought that a thing must 
be desired from one standpoint and abominated from an- 



other. It may be said to him : "Then will, according to you, 
is not related to a thing, except from the standpoint of its 
occurrence, which is also an abomination. And if a thing 
is willed from one standpoint, and abominated from another, 
it follows that the one who Wills has willed what he wills 
and abominated what he wills, which is a contradiction." 
But he said : "The one willing, wills nothing except from all 
standpoints, so that it is not possible for him to abominate it 
from another standpoint." This view is necessarily followed 
by the question of the known and the unknown, since he 
does not deny that a thing can be known from one stand- 
point and unknown from the other, by committing himself to 
the view that the same thing cannot be willed from one 
standpoint and abominated from another, he laid himself 
open to problems which destroy the basis of the Mu'tazilah 
creed. In fact, he had committed himself to most of these, 
and thus had to conclude that among the greatest heresies 
there were some that Allah did not abominate, and, on the 
other hand, among the beautiful truths, there were some 
that Allah did not will. The explanation of this is that if 
to kneel before Allah is worship ...(?),..• of idols, 
although to kneel before an idol is a great evil. And thus 179 
if he should wish that his description of Muhammad as the 
prophet of Allah should refer to ibn-'Abdallah, it would be 
necessary for him not to dislike it to be a description of an- 
other Muhammad, although this is heresy. It also follows 
that if Allah hates to have kneeling used as a worship of 
idols, then he does not wish it to be a worship of Allah, even 
though (in such a case) it be the worship of Allah and 
beautiful obedience. To all this, he committed himself, 
and moreover he mentioned in his great Collection that 
kneeling to idols is not abominated by Allah; at the same 
time he rejected the fact that the same thing could be 
willed and abominated from two different standpoints. 



This view he said abu-'Ali, his father, considered to be 
right. According to me, this view is not based upon proper 
principles, for will has nothing to do with the thing,, ex- 
cept in the matter of occurrence, according to us and to 
him. If he wills the occurrence of a thing, and at the 
same time abominates it, it follows that what he abom- 
inates is what he wills, unless there were two occurrences of 
the thing. According to us, he who relies on him is wrong 
because we hold that will has to do with the willed from the 
standpoint of occurrence, as well as from other standpoints. 
This conclusion which is forced on him is not forced on his 
father, and for forcing this conclusion there is an amswer 
and a reversal. As to the answer, his father in his view 
does not mean that will has to do with the thing from the 
standpoint of occurrence, as abu-Hashim held; in reality 
the father meant that the will is related to the thing while 
it was occurring, or to an attribute which it has while oc- 
curring; such as willing an act and willing that it should be 
an act of obedience to Allah, this (obedience) being an attri- 
bute that develops at the time of the occurrence. This re- 
sembles the view that command and report are not command 
and report except through the will, either the will of the one 
commanding, according to abu-Hashim and others, or its in- 
i8 herent will to be a command and a report, as ibn-al-Ikhshid 
among them said, because Allah had said, "And let him then 
who will, believe" (Surah 18, v. 28). He has, therefore, 
willed the occurrence of his word, as well as the belief from 
them, but the words, "Let him believe," is not, in this case, a 
command ; rather is it a threat, because he did not will this 
word to be a command. The report, according to them, is 
not a report until he wills it to be a report about this man 
and not that man. Although this is the reason for the will- 
ing of the occurrence of a thing, and although it has been 
proved that Allah's dislike of having kneeling made a wor- 



ship of idols is different from his will about its occurrence, 
yet what abu-Hashim said about its being willed from the 
standpoint which he abominated, does not follow. And as 
for the reversal, it is said Allah forbids kneeling to idols, and 
has given a command about it, and it has been firmly held by 
the Mu'tazilah that Allah commanded only the occurrence of 
the thing, and also forbids only its occurrence. Moreover, as 
they have held that Allah commanded kneeling as an act of 
worship to him, it must therefore follow that he forbids 
something from the standpoint which he commanded; for 
he forbids only the occurrence of the thing, and kneeling is 
only one occurrence. If, however, it had two occurrences, 
it would be necessary for it to be created from one stand- 
point and uncreated from another, whereupon the same 
conclusion about commanding and forbidding is forced upon 
him which was forced upon his father and the merchants ( ?) 
with regard to willing and abominating. 

His sixth heresy is his view regarding " the status " 181 
(Ahwal), which view was considered heretic by his fellow 
Mu'tazilites, as well as the other sects. What forced him 
to this heresy was the question put by our followers, the old 
Mu'tazilites, as to whether the learned among us differs 
from the ignorant by his knowledge in himself or for some 
other reason. They rejected the view that he differed from 
him in himself because both are of one kind. It is impos- 
sible that his difference with himself should be neither be- 
cause of himself nor for some other reason, because then, in 
differing from himself, he would not be superior to anyone 
else. It necessarily follows, too, that Allah has in his dif- 
ference from the ignorant a significance (ma'na) or an 
attribute by which he is differentiated. He thus claims that 
Allah differs from the ignorant only for being in a special 
state (Ml). Therefore the state exists in three situations. 
The first is the one in which the subject (mausilf) itself 



receives the attribute and deserves the attribute because of 
the state in which it is. 

The second situation is that the subject to which an attri- 
bute is given becomes attached to that attribute as its state 

The third situation is that the subject deserves an attri- 
bute neither for itself nor for an attribute, and becomes 
attached to that quality rather than anything else attached 
to the subject as its state. 

What forced him into this was a question put by Mu'am- 
mar regarding " the significances " : " Did the learning of 
Zaid belong to him rather than 'Amr, for himself or for 
some significance, or neither for himself nor some signifi- 
cance ?" If it is for himself, then it follows that all branches 
of learning belong to him, for they are all learning. If it is 
for some significance, then Mu'ammar is right in holding 
that each significance is attached to another significance 
endlessly. If it is neither for himself nor for some signifi- 
cance, then the fact that it belongs to him or to some one 
else is immaterial. According to abu-Hashim, Zaid's learn- 
ing belongs to him for some state (hal). But our follow- 
ers say that his learning belongs to him by its essence, and 
neither because it was knowledge nor because it was Zaid ; 
182 which is like saying that black is black because of its essence 
and not because it has a self or a being. They then said to 
abu-Hashim, " Do you know the status or not?" And he 
said no, because if he had said that they were known, he 
would have had to prove that they were objects, because, 
according to him, nothing is known unless it is an object. 
Nor could he say that they were changing status, because 
changes occur only in the case of objects and substances. 
Moreover, he does not say that status exist, nor does he say 
that they are non-existent, nor that they are eternal, nor 
that they are created, nor that they are known, nor that 



they are unknown, nor does he say that they are mentioned, 
although he mentioned them, holding that they are unmen- 
tioned, which is a contradiction. 

He claimed, moreover, that the learned has in each known 
thing a condition which cannot be said to be his condition 
in another known thing. To this end, he claimed that the 
conditions of the creator as to what he knows are endless ; 
the same thing being true about his conditions in his own 
capabilities, that they are endless just as his capabilities are 
endless. Our companions say to him : " You did not deny 
that for one known thing there are endless conditions, for 
the known can be dependent on any existent knower ad in- 
finitum. Furthermore, are the conditions of the creator 
brought about by others, or are they he himself?" To this 
he answered, " They are neither he nor another." They 
then said to him, " Why do you deny the view of the Sifat- 
lyah that the attributes of Allah are endless, since they are 
neither he nor another?" 1 

1 In the sixth of his heresies Abu-Hashim addresses himself to the 
problem of absolute being, human and divine and raises the question 
as to how the essence of this being differentiates itself from another being 
of the same genus or of another class and kind. Does a philosopher 
differ from a fool, the learned from the ignorant, by what the philo- 
sopher or the learned know, or in essence through some other causes. 
These early Arab enquirers, the old Mu'tazilah, held that it was not 
in essence or in some quality of the essence ; for both belong to the same 
genus. (For what is the wise man more than the fool?) 

These twain differ not in essence nor in the phenomena, the acci- 
dents nor the acquirements of life— a Semitic view as old as the 
Preacher of Ecclesiastes— and the difference, what ever source jt is 
from does not make the one superior to another. But Allah. al-'Alim, 
the knowing, in what fashion does he differ from the ignorant, in 
what sense and in what attribute does he differ? Abu-Hashim asserts 
that God differed solely in essence and not otherwise, and this essence 
differs in ways, or phases or particulars. 

The point of these aspects is that it is true of the divine essence 
that it is as it is and can be no other, and as it is in and by itself 
described and denned, and its conditioning nature is its inevitable and 
natural condition so that no other is or can be like it. 



His seventh heresy is the denial of certain phenomena 
[accidentals], the existence of which has been established 
183 by almost everyone, such as continuance, perception, grief, 
pain, and doubt. He claims that pain which has been in- 
flicted on man by an accident, and pain which comes from 
drinking distasteful medicines, does not mean more than 
the perception of something which temperament shuns; 
therefore perception, according to him, is not a reality. The 
same is true of the perception of the substances of people 
condemned to fire while they are in fire. In the same way, 
according to him, pleasures are not realities, they are not 
more than perceptions of a desired thing, and perception is 
not a reality. Of the pain which comes from the plague, he 
said it is a reality like that which comes from a blow. For 
proof of this he gave the view that it was included under 
sensation, which is a strange view, because the pain due to 
a blow with a stick, and the pain from mustard medicine, 
and the sting that comes from fire and from the drinking of 
bitter herbs are the same as regards sensation. Moreover, 
if he rejects the existence of pleasures as a reality, he cannot 
then consider the pleasures of the people of heaven more 
than the pleasures of infants which are given to them for 
well-doing, for nothing cannot be more than nothing. But 
he claimed that pleasure in itself is a benefit and a sensation, 
and yet he asserted that benefit and sensation are nothing. 
Moreover, he claims that all pain is harm, from which it 
follows that according to him harm also is nothing. 

His eighth heresy is his view in his chapter on annihila- 
tion, to the effect that Allah has no power to annihilate an 
atom from the world and still preserve the integrity of 
heaven and earth. This claim he founded on the basis of 
his assertion that bodies cannot be annihilated except by an 
annihilation created by Allah in no particular place and one 
that is opposed to all existing things because it is not pecu- 



liar to some of the substances, exclusive of others, since it 
does not pertain to any of them. If it is opposed to them, 184 
it annihilates them all. Regarding this heresy, it is suffi- 
cient to note that he says that Allah was able to annihilate 
a whole, but was not able to annihilate a part. 

His ninth heresy is his view that ablution is not a neces- 
sity. What drove him to this was that he asked himself 
about ablutions with water illegally acquired (his view and 
that of his father being that prayer is illegal if performed 
on ground illegally acquired). He came to the conclusion 
about ablutions with water illegally acquired; (his view and 
able. The distinction he made between the latter and 
prayer performed in a house illegally acquired, was that 
ablutions are not necessary. Thus, although Allah com- 
mands his followers to pray only after ablutions, this man 
inferred that ablutions are not a necessity, because one may 
perform the ablutions for another, and it will be acceptable. 
He then carried this reasoning into the matter of the pil- 
grimage, claiming that standing and going [around the 
Ka'bah] and running are not necessary to the pilgrimage, 
because he can acquit himself of all duties when riding. 
According to this view, he must hold the required alms 
not obligatory, as well as the atonement, and vows, and 
the payment of debts, because these can be done by proxy. 
Yet these are the most important regulations of the relig- 
ious law. It becomes evident by what we have mentioned 
in this chapter that the leaders of the Mu'tazilah con- 
demned each other as heretics. Most of them also con- 
demned their followers who imitated them. So to them we 
can apply the following saying of Allah : " We have aroused 
enmity and hatred among them" (Surah 5, v. 15). The 
following applies to the relation of their followers to them : 
" When those who have had followers shall declare them- 
selves free from their followers, after that they have seen 



the chastisement, and when the ties between them shall be 

185 cut asunder" (Surah 2, v. 167). And further: "The fol- 
lowers shall say, ' Could we but return to life, we would 
keep ourselves clear from them, as they have declared 
themselves clear of us ' " (Surah 5, v. 168). 

Among the obstinacies of their leaders is that of al- 
Nazzam regarding the " leap " and his view that the body 
passes from the first place to the third or the tenth, without 
need of a medium. We find here also the obstinacies of 
that class of perjurers who* assert that the dead really kill 
those who are alive. We also find the obstinacies of many 
of them in which they assert that he who is able to arise 
above the earth one span has also the power to rise above 
the seven heavens, and that those who have chained and 
bound hands are able to scale the steeps of the heavens, and 
that a small bug is able to drink the whole bottle ( ?). 

Another of them, known as Kasim al-Dimashki claims 
that letters of truth may form an untruth, and that the letters 
which are in the creed, " there is no God but Allah," are 
the same as those used in saying that Christ is a God; 
also that the letters which are in the Koran are the same 
as those in the book of Zoroaster of the Magians, being 
actually the same and not simply alike in one sense. He 
who does not consider such views as these mental arro- 
gance, cannot consider the denial of the tangible by the 
Sophists an arrogance. 

The Ashab al-Makalat (the writers of sayings) report 
that seven of the leaders of the Kadariyah gathered to- 
gether in a meeting and talked of Allah's power to op- 
press and lie. When they separated, each one was con- 
demning the other. One of them said to al-Nazzam in 
this meeting: "Has Allah [sufficient] power over what 

186 comes forth from him to turn it into oppression and lying?" 
He replied : " If he has such power, we cannot tell whether 



he has oppressed or has lied in what has already come to 
pass, or whether he may oppress or lie in the future, or may 
even have oppressed in some parts of the earth [and not 
others]. The only security we have against his oppression 
and his lying is by our having a good opinion of him." The 
questioner went on : " What evidence then makes us secure 
from such behaviour on his [Allah's] part; but to find this 
out there is no way. To this 'All al-Aswari answered : 
"According to this reasoning of yours it necessarily follows 
that Allah has no power over what he knows he does not do, 
or over what he said he would not do, because if he had 
power over it, he might have brought it about [after all] in 
the past or he may cause it in the future." Al-Nazzam said : 
"This does necessarily follow, — what, then, is your view of 
it?" He replied: "I compromise between the two views, 
and say that Allah has no power over what he knows he will 
not do, or over what he said he would not do, just as you and 
I say that he has no* power to oppress and lie." Al-Nazzam 
then said to al-Aswari : " Your view is apostate and heret- 
ical." Abu-al-Hudhail said to al-Aswari : "What do you say 
of Pharaoh, and of those whom Allah knew would not be- 
lieve, — were they able to believe or not? If you claim that 
they were not able to believe, then Allah would have laid 
upon them what they were unable to bear, and this, according 
to you, is heretical. On the other hand, if you say that they 
were able to believe, then how do you escape the fact that 
things occurred through them, which Allah knew would not 
occur, or that he said would not occur. According to your 
reasoning and that of al-Nazzam this is a denial similar to 
denying Allah's power to oppress and lie." He replied to 
abu-al-Hudhail : " Since this necessarily follows, how 
would you answer it?" And he replied : " My view is that 
Allah has power to oppress and to lie, and to do what he 
knows he would not do." And both of them said to him : 



jg^ "If he oppresses and lies, do you see what is to be made of 
the principles of the essence of the evidence which tries 
to prove that Allah does not oppress or lie?" He replied: 
" This is impossible." Whereupon they both said to him: 
" How can the impossible be within the power of Allah, 
and why did you consider it impossible for such a thing to 
occur from him, if you consider it within his power?" His 
reply was : " Because it does not occur until misfortune 
comes to one, and it is impossible for misfortune to come 
upon Allah." They said to him : " It is also impossible for 
him to have power over what takes place through him, ex- 
cept when misfortune comes upon him." And the three 
were amazed. Bishr said to them that everything which they 
held was nonsense. Abu-al-Hudhail replied : " And what 
do you say? Do you claim that Allah is able to torment a 
child, or do you merely say, ' This man (i. e. al-Nazzam) 
holds that view'?" He replied: "I hold that Allah has 
power to do this." And he said : " If he does that which he 
is able to do, namely torment a child, and oppress it, then the 
child must be an adult, intelligent, sinful, and deserving of 
the punishment which Allah imposes upon it. The evidences 
in themselves would be evidences of his justice." Abu-al- 
Hudhail said to him : " May your eyes weep. How can it 
be an act of virtue not to do what you can do along the line 
of oppression?" And al-Mirdar said: "Verily you have 
denied an opinion of my preceptor, and my preceptor was 
wrong." Bishr said to him: " How do you say?" And he 
replied : " I say that Allah has the power to oppress and to 
lie, and if he does this, he becomes an oppressive and a 
lying God." Bishr then said to him : " Does he deserve 
worship or not? If he deserves it, then worship is an act 
of praise toward the worshipped, and if he practises op- 
pression, then he deserves blame and not praise. If, on the 
other hand, he does not deserve worship, how can he be a 
lord without it?" 



Al-Ashbah said to them : "I hold that Allah has the power jgg 
to oppress and to lie; and even if he oppresses and lies, he is 
upright, just as he has the power to do that which he knows 
he is not going to do. If x he does it, he knows he will do it." 
Al-IskafI said to him : " How does tyranny change into 
justice?" And he replied: " What do you say?" And he 
said : " I hold that if Allah commits tyranny and lying, his 
act does not exist, for it is done to an insane or defective 
man." 2 Ja'far ibn-Harb said to him: "This amounts to 
saying that Allah has the power to oppress the insane, but 
no power to oppress the wise/' At that time, the people dif- 
fered over the reason for the different opinion held by each 
one of them. And when the turn to answer came to al- 
Jubba'i and his son, they refrained from answering in this 
matter, with advisedness. One of the followers of abu- 
Hashim does not mention this question in his book. And he 
said : " If we are asked, ' Can what Allah is able to do in the 
line of oppression and lying occur?' we reply, 'This can 
occur, because if its occurrence were not possible, he would 
have no power over it, because power over the impossible is 
an impossibility.' And if he says, ' Is such an occurrence 
from Allah possible ?' we answer, ' Its occurrence through 
him is not possible, because of the hatef ulness of such a deed, 
the fact that Allah can do without it, and that he knows he 
can/ If one says, ' Tell us if his ability to oppress and lie is 
applied, what would be his own condition? Does the occur- 
rence of his oppression prove his ignorance or his need?'', 
we say, * This is impossible because we have known him to 
be wise and rich.' And if he says, ' If oppression and lying 
come from him, is it then possible to say that this does not 189 
prove his ignorance or his need ?', we then say, ' he cannot 

1 'alima inserted here is a corruption of the text. 

2 A lie to an insane man is not considered a lie. 



be described in this manner because we know that oppression 
proves the ignorance of its author or his need.' And if he 
then says, ' Indeed, you do not answer the question asked 
of you regarding the evidence of the occurrence of oppres- 
sion and lies through him who is ignorant and needy, either 
by yes or no,' we say, ' So you say '." These leaders of the 
Kadariyah of our age acknowledge their inability, and the 
inability of their predecessors, to answer this question. If 
they should succeed in finding out the truth about it, they 
would accept the view of our followers that Allah has 
power over everything subject to power, and that every- 
thing which is subject to his power, if it comes from him, is 
not tyrannical on his part. And if they consider it impos- 
sible for him to lie, as our companions did, they would 
escape from the conclusions which were advanced against 
them in this matter. One of the excuses given by al-Jubba'i 
for not being able to answer this question by yes or no was 
something like this: If someone were to say: Tell me 
about the Prophet, if he lied, would that be or would it not 
be a proof that he was not a prophet ? He claimed that the 
answer to this was impossible. This is private guess on his 
part. As for the Sunnites, they hold to the principle that 
the prophet was free from lying and oppression, and had 
no power to perform them. And the Mu'tazilah, aside from 
al-Nazzam and al-Aswari, ascribed to Allah the power to 
oppress and lie. And they had to find an answer for the 
question of him who asked them about the occurrence of 
those things subject to his power that came from them 
(lying and oppression) if they were a proof of ignorance 
and need or not, by yes or no. Whoever of them tries to 
answer this, belies their principles in his answer. And 
praise be to Allah who saved us from this heresy of theirs 
which leads to such contradictions. 



Many of the numerous Arabic works on the religion of Islam have 
come down to us only as titles. Among the most important on the 
great question of sects are the following: 

Al-Subkl, in his Tabakdt al-Shdfi'iyah (ed. Cairo 1324 A. II., vol. i, 

pp. 252, 288 ; vol. ii, p. 171 ) , mentions these Shaf i'i writers on this subject : 

Ilusain ibn-'Ali ibn-YazId abu-'Ali al-Karabisi (245/859), one of 

those best versed in the teachings of the heretics. 
Muhammad ibn-Ahmad ibn-Nasr abu-Ja'far al-Tirmidhi, versed in 
theology and tradition, wrote a work on the Fundamental Dif- 
ferences of the People of Prayer. 
Abul-Fadl al-Balami (329/941), wrote essays on this subject. 
In verse : 
'Abdallah ibn-Muhammad al-Nashl (293/906) wrote four thousand 
verses on philosophy and religious systems, sects and beliefs 
(Mas'udi, Les Prairies d'Or, vol. vii, p. 89). 

Among the earliest polemical writers are : 

Abu-'All Ahmad ibn-'Umar ibn-Rustah (d. 360 A. H.) who wrote a 
chapter on Arts and Religions of Arabs before Islam and the 
Schools in Islam. Bibliotheca Geographic orttm Arabicorum, vol. 
vii, pp. 214-229 (sects on p. 217). 

Abu-Mansur 'Abd al-Kahir ibn-Tahir ibn-Muhammad al-Baghdadi 
(d. 329/1037). (A list of his important works is given elsewhere.) 

Shuhfur ibn-Tahir ibn-Muhammad al-Isfaraini (d. 1078). His manu- 
script in Berlin is practically a copy of Baghdadi's work. 

Abu-Muhammad 'All ibn-Ahmad ibn-Hazm (456/1064). Kitdb al- 
Milal wa'l-Nihal (a book on differences and sects). Published in 
Cairo, with Shahrastani's work printed on the margin. 

Abu'1-Fath Muhammad al-Shahrastani. Religious Sects and Philoso- 
phical Schools, translated by Haarbriicker (Halle 1850). 

This literature having reached its height with Shahrastani, we will 
not mention here the numerous treatises which have appeared since. 
Of the above-mentioned works, one only is available in translation : that 
of Shahrastani, Religions-Partheien und Philosophen-Schulen, trans- 
lated by Haarbriicker. Parts of ibn-^azm may be found translated by 
Prof. Friedlander, in the J. A. O. S., vols, xxviii and xxix. 



The most important works on this subject by European scholars are 
the following: 

E. Blochet: 

Le Messianisme dans l'heterodoxie Musulmane, Paris, 1903. 

A. Christensen : 
Remarques critiques sur le Kitdb baydni-l-adydn d'Abii-l-Ma'ali; in 
Le Monde Oriental, vol. v, 191 1, pp. 205 et seq. 

Israel Friedlander: 

The Heterodoxies of the Shiites, J. A. O. S., vols, xxviii and xxix. 
This article includes his translation of portions of ibn-Hazm. 
(New Haven, Conn., 1907.) 

Ignaz Goldziher: 
Beitrdge zur Literaturgeschichte der Shi'a und der Sunnitischen 

Polemik (in Akad. der Wiss. Phil. Hist, klasse. Sit sung sb., vol. 

lxxviii, pp. 439-524.) (Vienna.) 
Die Zahiriten (Leipzig, 1884). 
Le Denombrement des Sectes Mahometanes, in Revue de I'Histoire 

des Religions, vol. xxvi (Paris, 1892). 
Review of Baghdadi's work, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen- 

landischen Gesellschaft, vol. lxv, p. 349. 
I'orlesungen iiber den Islam (Heidelberg, 1910). (Translated into 

English, Mohammed and Islam, New Haven, Conn., 1917.) 

Hammer-Purgstall : 

Tableau Genealogique des 73 sectes de VI slam, in Journal Asiatique, 
1st ser., vol. vi, pp. 321-335; vol. vii, pp. 32-46. 

M. Horten: 
Die Philosophischcn Systeme der Spekulativcn Theologen im Islam 
(Bonn, 1912). 

S. Horovitz: 

Uber den Einfluss der Griechischen Philosophic auf die Entwicklung 

der Kalam (Breslau, 1909). 
Uber den EinHuss des Stoicismus auf die Entzvicklung der Philosophic 

bei den Arab em, Z. D. M. G., vol. lvii, pp. 177- 191. 

J. B. L. J. Rousseau : 

Memoires sur les trois plus fameuses sectes du Musuhnanisme (Paris, 
A. Nepven, 1818, ed. 75, p. 80). 


Martin Schreiner : 

Der Kaldm in der Judischen Literatur, Revues des Etudes JuivA 
vol. xxix, p. 211 (Paris, 1894). 

Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Theologischen Bewegungen im Islam, 
Z. D. M. G., vol. Hi, p. 463 and vol. liii, p. 51. 

Zur Geschichte des Asa' rite ntums, Actes du Troisieme Congres In- 
ternationale des Orientalistes, sec. i vol. i, p. 77 (Leiden, 1891). 

M. Steinschneider : 

Die kanonische Zahl der Muhammedanischen Secten. und die Sym- 
bolik der Zahl 70-73, Z. D. M. G., vol. iv, p. 145. 

J. Wellhausen: 
Religios-Politischen oppositions-parteien im alien Islam. Kon. 
Gesellschajt d. Wissensch. Gottingen, p. 99. Abhandl. Philol- 
Hist. Klasse, N. F., vol. v, no. 2 (Berlin, 1901). 

Wiistenfeld : 
Der Imam al-Schdii'i und seine Anh'dnger. Abhandlungcn der Gesell- 
schajt der Wissenschaftefi, vols, xxxvi, xxxvii (Gottingen, 1891). 


Abadlyah, 36 

* Abdallah ibn-al-IJasan ibn-al-Hu- 

sain, 63 
'Abdallah ibn-al-Wadin, 84 
'Abdallah ibn-abl-Aufl, 33 
•Abdallah ibn-Harath al-Khuzai, 


'Abdallah ibn-al-Zubair, 52, 59, 85, 


'Abdallah ibn-'Amr, 21 
'Abdallah ibn-'Amr ibn-al-'As, 22 
'Abdallah ibn-'Amr ibn-Harb, 49 
'Abdallah ibn-Dajah, 58 
'Abdallah ibn-Hammad al-Jubari, 

'Abdallah ibn-Hubab ibn-al-'Aratt, 

77, 78 
'Abdallah-ibn-Ibad, 104, 107 
'Abdallah ibn- Ja' far, 71 
'Abdallah ibn-Jausha al-Ta'i, 82 
'Abdallah ibn-Kauwa, 77 
'Abdallah ibn - Maimun al-Kadah, 

'Abdallah ibn- Muslim- ibn -Kutai- 

bah, 156, 179 
'Abdallah ibn-Muti' al-'AdawI, 52 
'Abdallah ibn-Najiyah, 21 
'Abdallah ibn 'Umar, 33 
'Abdallah ibn-Wahab al-Rasibi, 77, 

80 ff., 92 
'Abdallah ibn-Yazid, 21 
'Abdallah ibn-Yazid al-Ansari, 52 
'Abd-al-Ghaffar al-Faris, 8 
'Abd al-Kahir, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 22, 

45-7, 50, 61, 73, 94, 108, 115, 132, 

'Abd al-Kais, 125 
'Abd-al-Karim ibn-'Ajrad, 94, 96, 


'Abd-al-Malik ibn-Marwan, 54, 59, 

86, 88, 91, 112, 113 
'Abd-al-Rahman (bro. of 'A'ishah), 

'Abd-al-Rahman al-Nisaburi, 101 

'Abd-al-Rahman ibn -Muhammad 

ibn-al-Ash'ath, 113 
'Abd-al-Rahman ibn-Muljim, 64, 

93, 106 
'Abd al- Rahman ibn - Ziyad ibn 

An'am, 21 
'Abd al-Wahid ibn-Ziyad, 35 
'Abd-Rabbihi al-Kablr, 84, 87 
'Abd Rabbihi al-Saghir, 84, 87 
Abraham, 31, 151 
'Abs, 54 
Abstainers (from war), 84, 88, 98 

ff., 101 
al-Abtar, 45 
abu-'Abdallah, see al-Hasan ibn- 

Salih ibn-Hal al-Kufi 
abu-al-'Abbas al-Kalanisi, 165 
abu-al-Hudhail Muhammad ibn-al- 
Hudhail al-'Allaf, 68, 107, 125 ff., 
148, 165, 173, 207 ff. 
abu-al-Husain al-Khaiyat, see al- 

abu-al-Ruwandl, 147 
abu-Baihas, 91 

abu-Baihas Haisam ibn-'Amir, no 
abu-Bakr, 31-3, 45, 46, 50, 106. 109 
abu-Bakr al-Siddik, see abu-Bakr 
abu-Bakr Muhammad ibn-al-Tai- 

yib al-'Ash'ari, 138 
abu-Bilal Mirdas al-Khariji, 92 
abu-Fudaik, 90 ff. 
abu-Hanifah, 28, 39, *53 
abu-Hashim ibn-al-Jubba'l, 37, "6, 

118, 133. 165, 184, 190 ff., 209 
abu-Hurairah, 21, 22, 33, 154 



abu- Imam ah, 22 

abu - Hashim 'Abdallah ibn - Mu- 
hammad ibn-al-Hanifiyah, see 

Muhammad ibn-al-Hanaflyah 
abu-'Isa al-Warrak, 68, 71 
abu-Ishak, see al-Murtar 
abu-Ishak al-Isafaraini, 8 
abu-Ishak Ibrahim ibn-Saiyar, see 

abii-Ja'far al-Mansur, 62 
abu-Kamil, 36, 60 
abu-Karib al-Darir, 48 
abu-Kasim 'Abdallah ibn -Ahmad 

ibn-Mahmiid al-Banahi al-Ka'bi, 

see al-Ka'bi 
abu-Kubais, 68 
abu-Kudail (probably abu-Fudaik), 

87 k. 
abii'l-Darda, 22 
abu'l-Jarud, 43 
abu - 1 - Hasan al - Ash'arl, see al- 

abu-1-Julandi, 99 
abu-1- Sahara, ill 
abu-1-Shamrakh, 91 
abu-Malik al-Hadraml, 71 
abu-Maryam al-Sa'di, 82 
abu-Mas'ur, 155 fif. 
abu - Muhammad 'Abdallah ibn- 

'All ibn-Ziyad al-Sumaidhi, see 

abu - Muhammad 'Abdallah ibn- 

'Umar, 22 
abu-Muhammad ibn-'All ibn-'Ab- 

dallah ibn-'Abbas ibn-al-Mutta- 

lib, 49 
abu-Mukarram, 104 
abu-Musa al-'Ash'ari, 33, 146, 152 
abu-Musa al-Murdar, see al-Mur- 

abu-Muslim, 103, 104 
abu-Rashid, 83 
abii-Sahl Bishr ibn Ahmad ibn- 

Bashhar al - Isfara'ini, see al- 

abii-Salman, 21 
abu-Sa'ld al-Khidrl, 22 
abu-Shimr al-Murji', 37, 165 
abu - Yahya Yusuf ibn - Bashshar, 

see ibn-Bashshar 

abu - Ya'kub al - Shahham, see al- 

abu-Yusuf, 177 

abu-Zufar, 172 

Adam, 56 

al-'AdawI, 122 

'Adi ibn-Hatim al-Ta i, 78 

Adlmawat, the people of, 22 

Adnaniyah, 182 

Ahl al-Zahir, 39 

Ahmad ibn-al-Hasan ibn-'Abd al- 
Jabbar, 21 

Ahmad ibn-Fihr, 180 

Ahmad ibn-Nasr al-Marwazi, 179 

Ahmad ibn-Shumait, 57, 58 

al-Ahnaf ibn-Kais, 57 

al-Ahwaz, 85 ff., 121 

'Ailan, 54 

'A'ishah, 115, 122, 124 

Ajaridah, 36, 75, 94, 96, 98 

'Akabah, night of, 154 

al-'Akhnas, 103 

'Akhnasiyah, 102, 103 

'All, 5, 6, 22, 30, 33 ff., 36, 43 fi\, 
48 ff., 60 ff., 64, 66, 75 ff-, 8o,93, 
95, 106, 122 ff., 154, 170 

'All al-Aswarl, see al-Aswarl 

'All ibn abi-Talib, see 'All 

'All ibn - Ahmad ibn - Sa'id ibn- 
Hazm ibn-Ghalib ibn-Salih abu- 
Muhammad, see ibn-Hazm 

'All ibn-al-Husain Zain al-'Abidln, 
49, 64 _ 

'All ibn-'Isa ibn-Hadiyan, 100 

'All ibn-Maitham, 71 

'All ibn-Musa al-Rida, 66 

'All Zararah ibn-A'yan, 71 

'Amariyah, 60 

'Amir ibn-Wathilah al-Kinanl, 59 

'Amariyah, 36 

'Amr ibn-al-'Asi, 33, 80, 146 

'Amr ibn - Bahr al - Jahiz, see al- 

'Amr ibn-Harmiiz, 124 

'Amr ibn-.Sa'id, 99 

'Amr ibn-'Ubaid ibn-Bab, 34, 121, 
122, 123 ff. 

'Ammar ibn-Yasir, 123 

'Amr ibn-Yazid al-Azdi, 99 ff. 

'Amriyah, 37, 116, 123 



Amwariyah, 37 

Anas ibn-Malik, 22, 33 

al-Anbar, 82 

Arabs, 28, 109, 182 ff. 

Aristotle, 183 

Armenia, 54 

'Asa, 168 

al-Asamm, 119, 170 

A'sha, 58 

Ashab al-Makalat, 206 

Ashab Ta'ah, 36, 105, 107 

al-'Ash'ari, 8, 45, 71, 75, 76, 138, 

165, 189 
al-Ashhab ibn-Bishr al-'Urani, 82 
al-Ashbah, 209 
'Ashras ibn-'Auf, 82 
'Asiyah, 168 
Asma ibn-Kharijah, 56 
al-Aswad ibn-Zaid al-'AnasI, 32 
al-Aswarl, 137, 207, 210 
Aswariyah, 1 16 
'Atawlyah, 88 
'Atiyah ibn-al-Aswad al-Hanafl, 

87 ff-, 94 
'Attab ibn-Warka' al-Tamimi, 113 
'Aufiyah, in 
al-Auza'I, 22, 39 
Azarikah, 36, 82-4, 86 ff., 91, III, 

119 ff., 135, 195 
al-Azd, 57, 86 


Badr, battle of, 69, 170 

Baghdad, 66 

al-Baghdadi, see 'Abd al-Kahir 

Baghdadiyun, 187 

Bahshamiyah, 37, 116, 190 

Baihasiyah, 92, 99, noff. 

al-Bakir, 64, 65 

Bakr, 35, 54 

Bakriyah, 38, 41 

Bakiriyah, 35, 36 

Banu-l-'Abbas, 103 

Banu-Azd, 124 

Banu-Dabbah, 124 

Banu Hanlfah, 58 

Banu Isra'il, see Jews 

Banu-Khuza'ah, 180 
Banu-Kinanah, 182 
Banu Kuraizah, 80 
Banu-Shaiban, 112 ff., 113 
BanQ-Tamim, 123 
Banu Umaiyah, 46, 104 
Banu Yashkur, 76 
Bashhar ibn-Burd, 60, 61 
al-Basrah, 34, 56, 57, 62, 78, 85 ff., 

91 ff., 115, 120, 136, 154 
Basriyah, 139 
Basriyun, 186 ff. 
Batiniyah, 29, 35, 65, 66 
Battle of the Camels, 48, 78, 122 ff. 
Bayan ibn-Sim'an, 49 
Bayaniyah, 29, 36, 49 
Bishr ibn-Marwan, 112 
Bishr ibn-al-Mu'tamar, 134, 162 ff., 

165, 173, 207 
Bishriyah, 116, 162 
Buddhism, 12 
al-Bukhari, 45 
Burghunlyah, 37 
Burhanite Dualists, 141 
Bushanj, 100 
Bust, 101 
Butriyah, 35, 45 
Buwaihids, 190 

Cairo, 13 

Christians, 12, 21, 79, 130, 147 ff., 

172 ff., 178, 189 
Companions, 22, 60, 61, 65, 153, 155, 

157, 161 
Cordova, 11 

Dahhakiyah, no 
Dahrl, 129 ff. 
Dahrlyah, 125 ff., 178 
Darar, 32 

Darar ibn-'Amr, 35 
Dararlyah, 30, 35, 169 

(Dirarriyah, 38, 41) 
al-Dhar, 59 
al-Dhimmlyah, 190 
Dhi Salam, 56 



Dhubyan, 54 
Dhul-Nunain, 50 
Dhu'l-Thudyah, 77, 81 
Dualists, 136, 141 ff. 
al-Dujail (Little Tigris), 114 
Dulab al-Ahwaz, 77, 85, 86 
Duwaibivah ibn-Wabrah al-Bajadl, 

Fadak, 32 

Fadl al-IJadathi, 137 

al-Faiyad ibn Khali al-Azdi, 80 

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, 8 

Faljard, 99 

Faruk, 50 

Farwah ibn-Naufal al-Ashja'i, 82 

Fatimah, 154 

Followers of the Camel, 33, 75, 78, 

81, 122 ft. 
Followers of Obedience, see Ashab 

Friedlander, 7, 11 
al-Futl, see Hisham ibn-'Amr 


Gabriel, 27 

Ghailan al-Dimashki, 33, 119 

Ghalafah al-Taiml, 82 

Ghassaniyah, 37 

Ghazalah, 1 12-15 

al-Ghazzal, see Wasil ibn-'Ata* 

Ghulat, 5, 34-36, 49^ 55, 65, 75, 97, 

105, 116 
Greeks, 12, 32 


Habib ibn-'Asim al-'Audl, 81 
Hafs ibn-abi-i-Mikdam, 105 
llafsiyah, 36, 105 
Haisam al-Shari, 100 
al-Haitham ibn-Kharijah, 21 
Hajir, Mt., 62, 63 
al-Hajjaj ibn-Yiisuf, 86 n\, 112 flf. 
Hakakiyah, 38 
al-Hakam ibn-al-'Asi, 154 
Halula, Fort of, 112 
Haluliyah, 36 

Hamadhan, 45, 54, 58, 77 

riammad 'Ajrad, 61 

Hamran Kaumat, 35 

Hamzah ibn-Akrak al-Khariji, 97, 

98 ff. 
Hamzlyah, 36, g6, 98 
Hanbalite, 6 
Hanifite, 6 
Harbiyah, 49 

Harithah ibn-Badr al-Fadanl, 85 
Harith ibn-Mazid al-Ibadi, 106 ff. 
al-Harith ibn-'Umair, 112 
Harithiyah, 36, 105 ff. 
Harjarayah, 82 
al-Harrah, 46 
Harun al-Rashid, 99, 177 
Harura, 77 
Harurlyah, 77, 112 
al-Hasan al-Basrl, 34, 119, 121 
al-Hasan ibn-'Ali, 43, 44, 47, 48, 

57, 64, 123 
al-Hasan ibn-Salih ibn - IJai al- 

Kufi, 45 
Hashim al-Aukas, 124 
Haushah, 124 
Hautharah ibn-Wada' al - 'Asadl, 

Hayitiyah, 116, 37? 
Hazzan, 54 
al-Hijaz, 28, 52 
Himariyah, 37, 116 
Himrun, 63 
Hindu, 12 
Hirat, 99 ff. 

Hisham ibn-'Abd al-Malik, 35, 46 
Hisham ibn-'Amr al-Futi, 165 ff. 
Hisham ibn - al - Hakam al-Rafidi^ 

36, 67-71, 73, 136, 144 
Hisham ibn-Salim al-Jawaliki, 36, 

67, 7o, 71, 73 
Hisham ibn - 'Ubaidallah al-Razi, 

Hishamlyah, 36, 60, 67, 116, 165 
Holy Land, 31 

al-Hudaibiyah, day of, 79, 154 
Hudhaillyah, 37, 116, 125 
Hurairlyah, 35 
al-Husain ibn 'All, 43, 44, 46-8, 

52-4, 58, 59, 64, 123 



al-K[usain ibn-Numair al-Sukuti, 

9, 52, 54 
Hurkus ibn - Zuhair al - Bajall al- 

'Urani, 77, 80, 81, 92 

'Ibad ibn-Akhdar al-Tamlml, 93 
Ibadiyah, 29, 81, 104 ff., 106 ff., 109, 

120, 129 
al-Iskafl, 209 
Ibn-' Abbas, 33, 59, 123 
Ibn-'Abbad, 190 
ibn-abl-al-Salt, 98 
ibn-abi-Daud, 179 ff. 
ibn-al-Hanafiyah, see Muhammad 

ibn-al-Ikhshid, 200 
ibn - al - Jubba'i, see abu - Hashim 

ibn-al-Rawandi, 68 
ibn-al-Salah, 7 
ibn-al-Zaiyat, 179 ff. 
ibn-Arwa., 50 

ibn-Bab, see 'Amr ibn-Ubaid 
ibn-Bashshar (abu-Yahya Yusuf), 

47, 99 
ibn-Bassam, 182 
ibn-Hayit, 137 
ibn-Hazm, 5, 11, 12 
ibn-Khallikan, 7, 8 
ibn-Khuzaimah ibn-Mudrakali ibn- 

Ilyas ibn-Mudhar, 182 
ibn - Mubashshir, see Ja'far ibn- 

Mub ash shir 
ibn-Saba, 34 
ibn-Shihab, 55 
ibn-Yazid ibn Unais, 36 
ibn-Ziyad, 21, 52, 54, 83, 92 
Ibrahim, 109 ff. 
Ibrahim ibn-'Abdallah, 62, 63 
Ibrahim ibn-Malik al-Ashtar, 53, 

54, 57 
Ibrahimlyah, 36, no 
'Idhaj, 86 

Idris ibn-'Abdallah, 62, 63 
Imamlyah, 5, 30, 34 ff., 43, 44, 60, 

70, 72 ff. 
'Imran ibn-Hittan al-SadwtsI, 92 ft". 

al-'Irak, 46, 52, 54, 55, 86, 112, 152 
'Isa ibn-Maryam, 31 
'Isa ibn-Musa, 62, 63 
'Isa ibn-Sabih, see Murdar 
'Isawiah, 27 
al-Isfara'ini, 8, 21 
Ishak ibn-Suwaid al-'Adawi, 122 
Ishakiyah, 38 
Ishmael, 31 

al-Iskafl (Muhammad ibn-'Abdal- 
lah), 137, 175 ff-, 209 
Iskafiyah, 116, 175 
Isma'il ibn-Ja'far, 65 
Isma'll ibn-'Abbas, 21 
Isma'iliyah, 5, 36, 60, 65 
Ispahan, 28 
Ithna 'Asharlyah, see Twelvers 

Jabir, 22 

Jabir ibn-'Abdallah al-Ansari, 33, 

Ja'd ibn-Dirham, 33 

Ja'far al-Sadik, 66 

Ja'far ibn-Harb, 125, 137, 173, 175, 

Ja'far ibn-Mubashshir, 173 ff. 

Ja'far ibn-'Umar, 54, 65 

Ja'farlyah, 116, 173 

al-Jahiz, 68, 124, 137, 147, 153, !79, 
180 ff. 

al-Jahiziyah, 37, 1 16, 180 

Jahm ibn-Safvvan, 35, 37, 126 ff. 

Jahmlyah, 23, 30, 35, 37, 38, 41 

Jahzah, 182 

Jahziyah, 113, 114 

Jaml' ibn-Jusham al-Kindi, 80 

Janahiyah, 36 

Jaririyah, 44 

Jarudiyah, 35, 43-5 

al-Jazirah, 54, 81 

Jerusalem, 31 

Jesus, 189 (see also 'Isa ibn-Mar- 

Jews, 12, 21, 22, 28, 130, 147 ff-, l 73 

Jiraft Kirmln, 87 

Jiwaih ibn-Ma'bad, 99 

al-Jubba'i, 1 18, 125, 133, 137, 165, 
183 ff., 189 ff-, 209 



Jubba iyah, 37 

(Jubabiyah, 116) 
Juzajan, 47 

al-Ka'bi, abu-Kasim 'Abdallah ibn- j 
Ahmad ibn-Mahmud al Banahi, j 
27, 28, 75, 76, 117, 118 ff., 159, 

161, 180 ff., 184, 186 ff. 
Ka'blyah, 37, 116, 186 ff. 
Kabul, 123 

Kadarites, see Kadariyah 
Kadariyah, 5, 22, 23, 33, 37-9, 41, 

72, 95, 96, 98 ff., 116, 117, 121, 
124, 127, 133, 135, 137, 155 ff-, 

162, 176 ff., 179, 183 
al-Kadisiyah, 32, 37, 63, 95-6, 156 
al-Kahdiyah, 71 

Kahistan, 98, 101 

Kahtaniyah, 182 

Kais, 54 

Kaisan, 48 

Kaisaniyah, 5, 34-6, 43, 47, 48, 51, 

58-6o, 73 
Kaisum ibn-Salamah al-Juhani, 80 
al-Kalanisi, 138 
Kamiliyah, 36, 60, 61 
al-Karablyah, 48 
Karbela', 47-9, 53, 64 
Karramiyah, 27, 35, 38, 41, 72 
Karukh, 100 
Kasim al-Dimashki, 206 
Kaskar, 113 
Katadah, 22 

Katari ibn-al-Fujaah, 86 ff. 
Kathir al-Munauwa, 45 
al-Katif, 89 
Kati'iyah, 60, 66, 72 
al-Khaiyat (abu-al-Husain), 126, 

128, 147, 166, 172, 184 ff. 
Khaiyatiyah, 37, 116, 184 ff. 
Khalaf, 97 
Khalaflyas, 97, 100 
al-Khalidi, 37, 119 
Khalid ibn-' Abdallah, 21 
Kharijites, see Khawarij 
Khaulan, 54 
Khawarij, 5, 22, 23, 29, 30, 32, 34, 

36, 3$, 41, 46, 50, 74 ff-, 77, 80 ff., 
85 ff., 88, 96, 97, 100, 104, 113 ft"., 
122, 128 ff., 129, 137, 174, 197 

Khazimiyah, 36, 94 ff., 98 ff. 

Khuraim ibn-Fatik al-Asadl, 113 

Khurasan, 27, 35, 38, 47, 98, 100, 
(Khorasan), 86 

Kinaniyah, 182 

Kirman, 85, 87 

(Kurman), 97, 98, 101 

Kita'lyah, 36 

al-Kufah, 44, 46, 47, 52-8, 63, 77, 
80, 1 12-4, 154 

Kumis, 87 

Kuraib ibn-Murrah, 83, 93 

Kuraish, 32 

Kuthaiyir, 49, 50 


Ma'bad al-Juhani, 33, 101, 119, 121 

Ma'badiyah, 36, 102, 103 

al-Madain, 52, 58, 82, 113 

al-Madaini, 183 

al-Madhar, 58 

]\ladhhij, 54 

al-Madinah, 31, 32, 46, 63, 64, 65, 

154, 177 
al-Ma'dumiyah, 185 
Maghrib, 62, 63 
Magians, 12, 22, 35, 37, 130, 147, 

173, 206 
Mahdi, 44, 49, 55, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65, 

al-Mahin, 54 
Maimun, 96 

(not leader of Maimuniyah, 
Maimuniyah, 29, 36, 37, 75, 95, no 
Majhuliyah, 36, 97 
Makrumiyah, 104 
Malik, 39, 177 
Malikite, 6 
Ma'lumiyah, 36, 97 ff. 
Mamturah, 66, 72 
al-Ma'mun (caliph), 35, 101, 177, 

Manicheans, 139, 145 



al - Mansur, see abu - Ja'far al- 

Mansurlyah, 36 
Maradis al-Kharijl, 76 
Marlslyah, 37 

Marwan ibn-al-Hakam, 124 
Mary, 189 
Masldhan, 82 
Masma' ibn-Kadali, 77 
Mas'ud ibn-Kais, 100 
al-Mausil (Mosul), 54 
al-Mawayini, 112 

Mecca, 28, 31, 48, 59, 62, 63, 68, 107 
Michael, 2.7 
Miklas al-Azrak, 88 
Miilat* al-Islam, 25, 27 
al-Mirdad, 125 ff., 208 
Mu'adh ibn-Jarir, 82 
Mu'ammar, 118 ff., 124 137, 157, 

159 ff., 202 
Mu'ammariyah, 116 
Mu'awiyah, 5, 33, 47, 65, 76, 79 #-, 

82, 122, 170 
Mu'awiyah ibn - Ishak ibn - Yazld 

ibn-IIarithah, 46 
Mubaraklyah, 36, 60, 66 
al-Mughlrah ibn-Sa'Id al-'Ijll, 62, 

al-Mughlrah ibn-Shu'bah, 82 
Mughlrlyah, 29, 36, 63 
Muhakkimah, First, 36, 76, 81 ff., 

al-Muhallab ibn-abi-Sufrah, 57, 86 
Muhammad, 1, 6, 22, 23, 27-31, 59, 

62, 70, 79, 88, 140, 146 ff., 154, 

156, 161, 179, 181 
Muhammad Badr, 13 
Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah al - Is- 

kafi, see al-Iskafi 
Muhammad ibn-'Abdallah ibn-al- 

Hasan ibn-'All ibn-abi-Talib, 44, 

62, 63, 64 
Muhammad ibn - al - Ash'ath al- 

Kindl, 57, 58 
Muhammad ibn-al-IIanafiyah, 35, 

48, 49, 5i, 52, 55, 59 
Muhammad ibn-al-Hasan, 66, I70ff. 
Muhammad ibn-'All, 64 
Muhammad ibn-al-Kasim, 44 

Muhammad ibn-al-Nu'man al-Ra- 

fidl, 72 
Muhammad ibn-'Amr, 21 
Muhammad ibn-Isma'il, 65, 66 
Muhammad ibn - Ismail al - Buk- 

hari, see al-Bukharl 
Muhammad ibn - Shabib al-Basrl, 

Muhammad ibn-Tahir ibn-'Abdal- 
lah ibn-Tahir, 35 
Muhammad ibn-'Umar, 44 
Muhammadiyah, 35, 44, 60, 62, 64 
Mujassimah, 23, 27, 30 
Mukarramlyah, 36 
Mukarran, 97 ff. 
Mukassidun, 160 

al-Mukhtar ibn-abi-'Ubaid al-Tha- 
kafi (known also as abu-Ishak), 
47, 48, 51-8 
al-Murdar (Isa ibn - Sabih, abu- 

Musa al-Murdar), 171 ff., 175 
Murdarlyah, 116, 170 
Murjiites, see Murjlyah 
Murjlyah, 5, 22, 37, 38, 41, 108 
Mus'ab ibn-al-Zubair, 56-8 
Musa ibn-Ja'far, 65, 66, 72, 73 
Musailamah, 32 
al-MusawIyah, 36, 60, 71 
Mushabbihah, 23 
Muslim ibn-'Abs ibn-Kuraiz ibn- 

Hablb ibn-'Abd-Shams, 85 
Muslim ibn-Ahwaz al-Mazini, 47 
Muslim ibn-al-Hajjaj, 45 
Mustadrikah, 37 
al - Mustaurid ibn - Alkamah al- 

Tamlmi, 82 
al-Mu'tasim, 177 
Mutawakkil, 180 

Mu'tazilah, 5, 29, 34, 41, 106, n6ff., 
119, 125 ff., 131 ff- 135, *37, 139, 
147 ff., 149, 161 ff., 166, 170 ff., 
176 ff., 182, 184 ff., 186 ff., 191, 
201, 203, 205, 210 
al-Muttarih, 89 
Muwaislyah, 37, 116 


Nabhan, 54 



Nafi' ibn-al-Azrak al-Hanafi, 83 ff., 

86 ff. 
Nahawand, 32 
Nahd, 54 

al-Nahrawan, battle of, 77, 82 
Najadat, 36, 75, 76, 87, 91, 120, 174 
Najd, 63 

Najdah ibn-' Amir al-^anafl, 87-90 
Najjariyah, 23, 30, 34, 37, 41, 137, 

Najran, 79 
Nisapur, 7 

(Nisabur), 101 
Nasr ibn-al-Hajjaj, 154 
Nasr ibn-Bashshar, see ibn-Bash- 

Nasr ibn-Harimah al-'Ansi, 46 
Nawisiyah, 35, 60 
al-Nazzam abu-Ishak Ibrahim ibn- 

Saiyar, 70, 124, 135 ff-, 165, I7h 

173, 175, 183, 186 ff., 206 ff., 210 
Nazzamlyah, 135 ff. 
Nizamlyah, 37 

(Nazzamlyah), 116 
al-Nu'at, 54 
al-Nukhailah, 82 

Persia, 36, 52, 85 ff. 

Persians, 32 

Prophet, The, see Muhammad 

Radwa, Mt., 48, 50, 51 

Radwa, Pass of, 59 

Rafi ibn-Laith ibn-Nasr ibn - Sai- 

yar, 101 
al-Rai, 34, 37, 87, 176 
al-Rashid, 65, 101, 104 
Rashidiyah, 36, 104 
Rashid al-Tawil, 88, 90 ff. 
Rawafid, 23, 34-6, 38, 43, 47 
(Rafidiyah), 29, 39, 46, 71 
(Rafidah), 41, 55, 60, 61, 73, 

106, 170 
Rawandiyah, 49 
Ruh Zinba', 112 
Rukanah ibn-Wa'il al-Arji, 80 

al-Ruwandi, 165 

Sabat al-Madain, 34, 47 

Sabbabiyah, 34, 55, 64 

Sabur, 86 

Sa'd ibn-abl-Wakkas, 32 

Sa'd ibn-Kufr, 82 

Sa'd ibn-Mu'adh, 80 

Sa'd ibn-Mujalid al-Saiba'l, 80 

Sa'd ibn-'Ubadah al-Khazraji, 32 

Safwan-Ansarl, 61 

Sahamiyah, 37 

Sa'Id ibn-al-'Asi, 154 

Saiyid al-Himyari, 50, 51 

Sajah, 32 

al-Salihi, n8ff., 184 

Salih ibn-Mishrah al-Khariji, in 

Salih ibn-Mishrah al-Tamiml, in 

Salihiyah, in 

(Same as Khawarij on p. 113) 
Salih Kubbah, followers of, 37, 116 
Salt ibn-'Uthman, 98 
Saltlyah, 98 
Samaritans, 148 
Samarkand, 101 
Sammak ibn-Harb, 45 
Sanan al-Ju'fi, 47 
Satan, 61, 64 
Sawad al-Kufah, 82 
Sha'bah, 100 
Shablb ibn-YazId al-Shaibani, in 

al-Shablblyah, in, 115 
al-Shafi'l, 39, 153, 174 ff., 177 
Shafi'ite, 6 
al-Shahham, 183 ff. 
al-Shahhamlyah, 116, 183 
Shahrastani, 5, 11, 35 
Shaiban ibn - Salamah al-Khariji, 

Shaibaniyah, 103, 104 
Shaitan al-Tak, 36, 71, 72 
Shaitanlyah, 36, 60, 72 
Shamltiyah, 60 
Sharikan, 28 
Sharikanlyah, 28 
Shibt ibn-Rab'i, 77 



Shiite, 1, 5, 6,^129, 137 
Shuaib, 96 
Shu'aiblyah, 36, 95 
Shuhfur ibn-Tahir, 10 
Shumaitiyah, 36 
Shurah, 76 
Sifatiyah, 5, 184, 203 
Siffin, 33, 60, 76, 77, 122 
Sifriyah, 36, ill, 120 

(See Sufrlyah) 
Sijistan, 81, 88, 94, 98, 100, 101 
Sophists, 136 
Subkl, 7, 8 

Sufain ibn-al-Abrad al-Kalbi, 114 
Sufrlyah, 91 ff., 112 

(See Sifriyah) 
Sufyan ibn^al-Abrad al-Kalbi, 87 
Suhail ibn-'Amr, 79 
Sulaiman ibn-Jarir al-Zaidi, 44, 45 
Sulaimaniyah, 35, 44, 45 
Sunnites, 1, 5, 6, 9, 23, 29, 94, 97, 

103, i2£ L 129, 135, 138, 171 
Surakah ibn-Mirdas al-Bariki, 56 
Syria, 32, 52, 90, 112, 170 

Tabaristan, 87 

Tahir ibn-al-Husain, 101 

al-Ta'if, 59 

Taim 'Adi, 82 

Talakan, 44 

Talhah, 95 

Talhah ibn-Fahd, 99, 122, 124 

Tall-Mauzan, 81 

Tamamiyah, 116 

Taraikiyah, 38 

Tarif," 58 

Taumaniyah, 37 

Tauwaj, 93 

Tha'alibah, 102, 104 

Tha'alibah Khawarij, 101 

Tha'labah ibn-Mashkan, 102 

Thamamah ibn-Ashras al-Numairl, 

177 ff-, 181 
Thamamlyah, 177 
Thanawlyah, 12 
Thaubanlyah, 37 
al-Thaurl, 39 

Thu'al, 54 
Thumamiyah, 37 
Tigris, 62 
Tulaihah, 32 
Twelvers, 36, 60, 66 


'Ubad ibn-al-Husain al-Haiti, 83 
'Ubad ibn - Sulaiman al - 'Amrl 

CUmari?), 167 ft. 
'Ubaidallah ibn-al-Hirr al-Ju'afl, 

53, 57 
'Ubaidah ibn-Hilal al-Yashkuri, 87 
'Ubaidallah ibn-Ma'mar al-Taimi, 

57 . 
'Ubaidallah ibn - Ziyad, see ibn- 


'Ubaid ibn-abi-1-Mukharik al-Mu- 
tannabi, 113 

Ubai ibn-Ka'b, 22 

Uhud, 170 

'Ukbah ibn-' Amir al-Juhanl, 33 

'Uman, 54, 81 

'Umar, 44, 45, 50, 106, 154 

'Umar al-Faruk, 154 

'Umar ibn-Sa'd, 53 

'Umarlyah, 37 

Ummat al-Islam, 12, 27-32 

Urwah ibn-Hudair, 76 

'Utbah ibn-'Ubaid al-Khaulani, 80 

'Uthman, 33, 45, 75, 8r, 95, 154, l6f ) 

'Uthman ibn-'Affan, 88, 106 

'Uthman ibn-Ma'mun, 86 

'Uthman ibn-'Ubaidallah ibn-Ma'- 
mar al-Tamlmi, 85 ff. 


Wadi al-Siba', 124 
Wahb ibn-Baklyah, 21 
Wakifah, 36, 110 

(Wakifiyah), 119 
Walid ibn-Maslamah, 22 
al-Walid ibn-'Ukbah, 154 
Wasil ibn-'Ata al-Ghazzal, 34, 3S. 

119, 121 ff., 170 
Wasillyah, 37, Il6, 119 
al-Wasy, 50 



al-Wathik, 177, 179 
Wathilah ibn-al-Aska\ 22 

Yahya ibn-Aktham, 177 

Yahya ibn-Zaid, 47 

Ya'kub, 46 

Ya'kubiyah, 45 

al-Yamamah, 88, 90 

al-Yaman, 52, 81, 90 

Ya'mur ibn-'Ubaidallah ibn - Ma'- 

mar al-Maiml, 91 
Yazid ibn-'Ali ibn-al-Husain ibn- 

'Ali ibn-abi-Talib, 47, 48 
Yazid ibn-al-Muhallab, 87 
Yazid ibn-Asim al-Muhadhi, 76 
Yazid ibn-Mu'awiyah, 47, 48, 52, 

59, 92 
Yazidiyah, 29, 36, 37, 74, 105 
Yunus ibn - 'abd - al - Rahman al- 

Kummi, 36, 66, 72 
Yunusiyah, 36, 37, 60, 72 
Yusuf ibn-'Um-Thakafi, 46, 47 

al-Za'farani, 34 

Za'faraniyah, 37 

Zahaf ibn-Rahar al-Ta'i, 83, 93 

Zahiriyah, 148 

Zaid ibn-'Ali ibn - al - Hasan ibn- 

'Ali ibn-abi-Talib, 46 ' 
Zaid ibn-'Ali ibn-al-Husain ibn- 

'Ali ibn-abi-Talib, 35 
Zaidiyah, 5, 30, 34-6, 43, 45, 46, 53, 

60, 72, 73 
Zaranj, 100 
Zararah ibn-A'yun, 36 
Zarariyah, 36, 60, 71 
Zindiks, 173, 177, 178 
Ziyad-ibn-'Abd-al-Rahman, 104 
Ziyad ibn-Abihi, 82 
Ziyad ibn-al-Asfar, 91 
Ziyad ibn-Kharrash al-'Ijli, 82 
Ziyadiyah, 104 
al-Zubair, 95, 122, 124 
Zur'ah ibn-Muslim al-'Amiri, 92 
Zurkan, 70 


Columbia University in the City of New York 

The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the pub- 
lication of the results of original research. It is a private cor- 
poration, related directly to Columbia University by the provis- 
ions that its Trustees shall be officers of the University and that 
the President of Columbia University shall be President of the 

The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on Biog- 
raphy, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and Lit- 
erature, and the following series : 

Adams Lectures Carpentier Lectures 

Julius Beer Lectures Hewitt Lectures 

Blumenthal Lectures Jesup Lectures 

Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology 

Columbia University Biological Series 

Columbia University Studies in Cancer and Allied Subjects 

Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology 

Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature 

Columbia University Studies in English 

Columbia University Geological Series 

Columbia University Germanic Studies 

Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series 

Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and Philology 

Columbia University Oriental Studies 

Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Literature 

Records of Civilization : Sources and Studies 

Catalogues will be sent free on application 


30-32 East 20th Street, New York 

Columbia University Oriental Studies 


Vol. I. The Improvement of the Moral Qualities. An Ethical Treatise 
of the Eleventh Century by Solomon Ibn Gabirol. By Stephen S. 
Wise, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. ix + 117. $1.25 net. 

Vol. III. Old Babylonian Temple Records. By Robert Julius Lau, 
Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xi + 89 -f- 41. Plates. $2.50 net. 

Vol. IV. Sidon. A Study in Oriental History. By Frederick Carl 
Eiselen, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. vii -f 172. $1.50 net. 

Vol. V. History of the City of Gaza from the Earliest Times to the Pres- 
ent Day. By Martin A. Meyer, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xiii + 182. 
$1.50 net. 

Vol. VI. The Bustan Al-Ukul by Nathaniel Ibn Al-Fayyumi. By 

David Levine, Ph. D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xvi + 142 f 88. $2.50 net. 
Vol. VIII. Sumerian Records from Drehem. By William M. Nesbit, 

Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xiv -f- 91. Plates and sign list. $1.50 net. 
Vol. IX. The Evolution of Modern Hebrew Literature, 1850-1912. By 

Abraham Solomon Waldstein, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. vii + 127. 

$1.50 net. 

Vol. X. The History of Tyre. By Wallace B. Fleming, Ph.D. 8vo, 
cloth, pp. xiv -h 165. Map. $1.50 net. 

Vol. XI. The Problem of Space in Jewish Medieval Philosophy. By 

Israel Isaac Efros, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. ix + 125. $1.50 net. 
Vol. XII. The Yemenite Manuscript of Pesahim in the Library of Col- 
umbia University. By Julius J. Price, Ph.D. 8vo, paper. $i;5o 
net. In press. 

Vol. XIII. Aram and Israel, or the Aramaeans in Syria and Mesopotamia. 

By Emil G. H. Kraeling, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xvi + 154. $1.50 

Vol. XIV. A Sumero-Babylonian Sign List. To which is added an 
Assyrian Sign List and a Catalogue of Numerals, Weights and Meas- 
ures used at various periods. By Samuel A. B. Mercer, Ph.D. 4to, 
cloth, pp. xi -h 244. $6.00 net. 

Vol. XV. Moslem Schisms and Sects (Al-Fark Bain al-Firak). Being 
a History of the Various Philosophic Systems Developed in Islam. 
By Abu Mansur abd al-Kahir ibn Tahir al-Baghdadi. (d. 1037). 
Part I. Translated from the Arabic. By Kate Chambers Seelye, 
Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. viii -|- 224. $2.00 net. 


30-32 East 20th Street New York 

Columbia University Contributions to 
Oriental History and Philology 



No, 1. Sumerian Hymns. From Cuneiform Texts in the 
British Museum. Transliteration, translation and comment- 
ary. By Frederick A. Vanderburgh, Ph.D., Lecturer in 
Semitic Languages, Columbia University. 8vo, pp. xii -f 
83. Paper, $1.00; cloth, $1.50 net. 

No. 2. The History of the Governors of Egypt by Abu 

Muhammad Ibn Yusuf Al-Kindi. By Nicholas August 
Koenig, Ph.D. 8vo, paper, pp. 33 -f 33. $1.00 net. 

No. 3. Assyrian Primer. Bn Inductive Method of Learn- 
ing the Cuneiform Signs. By J. Dyneley Prince, Ph.D., 
Professor of Semitic Languages, Columbia University. 
8vo, paper, pp. 58. $1.00 net. 

No. 4. The Witness of the Vulgate, Peshitta and Septn- 
agint to the Text of Zephaniah. By Sidney Zandstra, 
Ph.D. 8vo, paper, pp. 52. $1.00 net. 

No. 5. Tiglath Pileser III. By Abraham S. Anspacher, 
Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. xvi -f 72. $1.25 net. 

No. 6. Root-Determinatives in Semitic Speech. A Con- 
tribution to Semitic Philology. By Solomon T. H. Hur- 
witz, Ph.D. 8vo, pp. xxii + 113. Cloth, $1.50 net ; 
paper, $1.00 net. 

No. 7. Mnhammedan Law of Marriage and Divorce. 

By Ahmed Shukri, Ph.D. 8vo, paper, pp. 126. $1.00 net. 
Out of print. 


30-32 East 20th Street New York 

Date Due 

■* a % 





____——. i 



* - ^ 







4\ \%+